o 



^Jyecartm-e^ ot /T9 *"•<!.«/■/« 



^u/U-f:^ fl^, ^yg 



^^, 



UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
BULLETIN No. 648 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

Contribution from the OflBce of Farm Management 
W. J. SPILLMAN. Chief 



Washington, D. C. 



May 1, 1918 



A FARM-MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN 
BROOKS COUNTY, GEORGIA 



By 



E. S. HASKELL, Assistant Agriculturist 



CONTENTS 



Page 
Description of Area Surveyed .... 1 
Method and Scope of Investigation . . 5 

Type of Farming 7 

Tenure and Landlord's Profits .... 13 
Labor Systems 14 



Paga 

Size of Business 18 

Quality of Farm Business 20 

Organization . ^ 30 

Cost of Production 41 




WASHINGTON 
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1918 



Monograph 



o' ^ 



v::^ 



D. of D. 
i/.AY 24 1913 



UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 




S^^^'^'mTU 



BULLETIN No. 648 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY. 

Contribution from the Office of Farm Management. 

W. J. SPILLMAN, Chief. 




Washington, D. C. 



May 1, 1918 



A FARM-MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS 
COUNTY, GEORGIA. 

By E. S. Hasket.l, Asfiistant Agriculturist. 



CONTENTS. 



Page. 

Description of area survcyerl 1 

Method and scope of investigation 5 

Type of farming 7 

Tenure and landlord's profits 13 

Labor systems 14 



Page. 
Size of business 18 

Quality of farm business 20 

Organization 30 

Cost of production 41 



DESCRIPTION OF AREA SURVEYED. 

Brooks County is located in the southern part of the coastal plain, 
just west of the center of the southern tier of counties in Georgia, 
about 50 miles from the Gulf of Mexico. The area covered by this 
survey is in the southern half of the county, liordering on the Florida 
State line. The location is shown by the shaded portion of the map, 
figure 1.' 

This area was selected for study because here has been developed 
a diversified and profitable type of agi'iculture, with cotton retained 
as the chief single source of income. For years these farmers have 
developed the swine industry and the production on the farm of the 
products consumed in the home to a point that has been equaled in 
but few places in the South. It is believed that the type of farming 
found here embodies features that might with profit be adopted in 
many parts of the cotton belt. This is particularly true now that 
the recent rapid advance of the cotton-boll weevil into this section 
has forced many farmers to face the necessity of reorganizing their 
farms upon a basis involving less dependence than. hitherto upon the 

1 For assistance in coUecting ttie data upon which this study is based, acknowledgment 
is due to Messrs. M. A. Crosby, C. E. Hope, A. G. Smith, and F. D. Stevens, of the staff 
of the OfBce of Farm Management : to .T. M. Purdom. Jr., temporarily employed by- the 
Office of Farm Management; and to Messrs. S. II. Starr and E. C. Westbrook, of the 
faculty of the Georgia State College of Agriculture. Special acknowledgment is due 
Prof. Starr, who also assisted in tabulating tbe data, 

27202°— 18— Bull. 648 1 



2 BULLETIN 648, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTUEE. 

single crop, cotton. At the time this survey was made (1914) the 
boll weevil had not invaded Georgia, but since then the entire south- 
ern part of the State has become infested. Of this, more will be said 
in another place. 

The topography of the southern half of Brooks County is genth' 
rolling to flat. Most of it has sufficient slope to provide good natural 




Fig. 1. — Map of Georgia, showing, in black, location of area surveyed. Shaded area 
indicates Coastal Plain section. 

drainage, though considerable areas, particularly near the streams, 
are rendered swampy and of little value because of insufficient 
drainage. 

The soil of this area is distinctly sandy, being mainly of the Nor- 
folk sandy loam and closely related types. It is a gray sand, under- 
laid at a depth of from 10 to 40 inches or more by a yellow subsoil of 
a heavier texture. The soil is quite uniform over the area covered by 
this survey and is fairly representative of the soils over a consider- 



A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 



able part of the coastal plain of this and the adjoining States. 
Farther north in the county the soils become gradually heavier, grad- 
ing into the Ruston and Tifton series, but this survey has been con- 
fined to farms on the lighter soils found in the southern half of the 
county. 

The climate of Brooks County is warm and equable. The winters 
are mild, and the summers, though long and warm, are tempered by 
Gulf breezes. Snow falls rarely, and temperatures lower than 30° 
F. seldom occur, though thin ice frequently forms during the winter 
months. Killing frosts may occur any time between November 15 
and March 1. The annual precipitation amounts to 52 inches; the 
heaviest rainfall occurs during the months of June, July, and Au- 
gust. In figure 2 the 
average precipitation 
and that for the year 
1914 are shown by 
months. 

Quitman, the county 
seat, with a popula- 
tion of about 4,000, is 
just south of the cen- 
ter of the county and 
in the northern part 
of the area included 
in thi's survey. The 
Atlantic Coast Line 
Railroad crosses the 
county from east to 
west and the South 
Georgia Railroad 
from north to south, 
both passing through Quitman. These two railroads provide most 
of the area with good transportation facilities to outside markets, 
though some parts of the area, notably in the southwestern part of 
the county, are 8 to 10 miles or more from shipping points. The 
public roads of the county are of sandy clay, and the principal roads 
are being rapidly improved. 

For years Brooks County has grown nearly all the live-stock 
feedstuffs consumed, together with a surplus to be sold in other 
markets. As a result, the local prices for such feeds are appreciably 
lower than those that prevail in the near-by counties which continue 
to purchase a part of their feeds from outside sources. Thus, in 
this county, the 1914 prices of corn and oats averaged about 75 cents 
and 50 cents per bushel, respectively, as compared with $1 and 75 
cents throughout the greater part of the State. 



II 

10 
9 

r 

Z 7 

z 

I ^ 

o 

h 

Q. 4 



a. 3 
a. 

z 
1 




A 
























1 \ 












« 












1 5 

r • 












II 

1 \ 
1 1 










1 
1 












I 
f 


1 

1 
1 










1 
1 
1 












ri 




1 








1 

1 










/ 


1 
1 
1 


\ 


1 

t 
1 


















/-' 




\ 


« 

I 
k 1 










xs 






J 








V- 






// 


y 




s 




J 








\ 




( 


f 










1 
1 
f 










v 


'J 










V 












































JAN. 


FEB, 


MAR. APR.I 


MAY 


JUN. 


JUL. 


AUG. 


SEP. 


OCT. 


NOV. 


otc 






914 




1 














— 1 



Fig. 2. — Precipitation by months at Quitman, Ga. 



4 BULLETIN 648, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUEE. 

Brooks County has long been noted for the amount and quality 
of pork produced, much of which has brought a substantial premium 
in the larger markets of this and adjoining States. Until recently, 
practically all the pork was killed and cured on the farms; but a 
packing plant is now in operation in an adjoining county, thus 
providing a ready market for live stock on the hoof. 

Brooks County was organized in 1858. The pioneer settlers came 
to this section largely from the older parts of the State early in the 
last century, but it was not until the first railroad, the present 
Atlantic Coast Line, was built, just prior to 1860, that settlement 
was given an impetus. The older settlers came largely from northern 
Georgia, the Carolinas, and Virginia. 

The direction and rate of the development of the agriculture of 
the county are shown by the census data presented in Table 1. In 
1860, 15.3 per cent of the land area was classed as improved farm 
land, a percentage that increased through each succeeding decade to 
36.9 per cent at the time of the last census. A large part of the county 
is still covered by longleaf pine and other timber. 



Table I. — Census data 


, Brooks County, Ga. 








1860 


1870 


1880 


1890 


1900 


1910 






Number of farms <* 


300 


394 


930 


1,176 


1,823 


2,646 








81.1 

18.8 


65.8 
28.0 


83.9 
27.4 


74.6 
33.7 


87.6 
37.4 


85.8 


Per cent of farm land improved 


43.0 






Per cent of land area in improved farm land . 


15.3 


18.4 


23.2 


25.2 


32.7 


36.9 




890 
108 


550 
1.52 


297 
82 


209 
70 


158 
69 


106.6 


Improved acres per farm 


45.9 








84. 05 
4,954.00 


$1.12 
3,097.00 


$3.79 
1,465.00 


$1.70 
1,296.00 


$4.65 
1,219.00 


$14.60 




2,377.00 




Per cent of farms operated by owners and 






66.2 
14.4 

19.4 


62 9. 
15.7 

21.4 


50.3 
35.9 

13.8 


41.5 








26.6 


Per cent of farms operated by share ten- 






31.9 










Number of horses on farms 


657 

856 

14,797 

3,113 


491 

777 
8,196 
4,921 


823 

958 

13,032 

4,596 


9.56 

1,225 

11,319 

1,940 


1,192 

1,776 

11,170 

961 


1,205 


Number of mules on farms 


2,875 




14, 178 


Numljer of sheep on farms 


610 








18,629 
62.1 

37.0 


11,087 
28.3 

18.3 


17,243 
18.5 

22.6 


22, 760 
19.4 

27.5 


29, SS5 
16.4 

27.8 


47,210 


NumVier of swine per farm 


17.8 


Number of swine per 100 acres improved 
land . . . 


38.9 






facFPs 






21, 255 

6, 288 

23,027 

173, 530 

14,087 

163, 802 

161 

879 


22, 161 

9,194 

26,157 

270, 978 

13,225 

122, 775 

111 

565 

6,884 

91,685 


16,096 

7,151 

38,428 

384, 220 

11, 299 

104,530 

116 

500 

10,307 

196,724 


34,065 


f'"""" ibaiesv::: 

r^ lacres 


4,406 


3,466 


13,977 
40, 121 


^«™ jbushels.. 


223,353 


171,190 


546, 760 
9,512 


Oats jbusheis:: 


6,911 


45, 716 


143, 120 
279 


^y^ ibusheis:: 


1,914 


1,738 


1,900 

14, 775 


Permits Ibusheis:: 








365,395 













a It should be borne in mind that in the census returns croppers are treated as farm operators, though in 
reality they are wage hands receiving their wage in the form of a share of the crop. The numliers of actual 
farms are, therefore, considerably smaUer than given in the table, and the average sizes of farms are cor- 
respondingly larger. Most of the farmers classed as "share tenants " are in reality croppers. There are 
but few share tenants, properly speaking, in Brooks County. 



A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 5 

From the first, cotton and corn have been the crops of greatest 
importance. . By 1900 the cotton acreage had declined, relatively, as 
compared Avith other crops, following a number of years of low 
cotton prices, but since that date cotton has been developed more 
rapidlj' than any of the other crops. The acreage of oats increased 
rapidly up to 1880, but since then it has steadily declined both in 
actual acreage and relatively. The plantings of rye have been in- 
creasing since 1880, but the total acreage is still small, this crop 
being used mainly for pasture purposes. The rapid increase in the 
planting of peanuts is noteworthy, the acreage having increased 
from 6,884 acres in 1880 to 14,775 in 1910. This increase has been 
coincident with and a result of the development of the swine in- 
dustry. The peanut acreage in Brooks County was in 1910 consid- 
erably in excess of that of any other county in Georgia, and equal 
to nearly 10 per cent of the total for the State. 

Of the different classes of live stock other than work stock, swine 
is the only one that has increased in importance. The number of • 
sheep has declined rapidly since 1870, to an insignificant number, and 
the number of cattle was nearly the same at the time of the last 
census as it was in 1860. The number of hogs in the county declined 
somewhat from 1860 to 1870, but since then the number has con- 
stantly increased from 11,087 to 47,210 in 1910. Measured in terms 
of the number per 100 acres of improved farm land, the number of 
hogs declined from 37 to 18.3 during the decade between 1860 and 
1870, but since that time the number has increased to 38.9 per 100 
acres. 

Since this survey was made the acreage of peanuts grown and the 
number of hogs produced have increased very rapidly. This has 
been due partly to the better market offered for hogs, but 
principally to the invasion of the boll w^eevil, which has greatly in- 
creased the hazard of cotton growing. 

METHOD AND SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION. 

In this study a record was obtained from each farmer of the 
amount and value of each class of farm property ; the amounts, 
sources, and nature of all receipts and expenses; the amounts and 
values of each item contributed by the farm toward the family liv- 
ing; the amount of labor expended on each enterprise, and data on 
numerous other factors necessary in making a complete analysis of 
the farm business and calculating the cost of each productive enter- 
prise. The methods and details of calculating costs will be dis- 
cussed in another place. 

A farm-management survey should represent conditions that are 
as nearly normal as possible if the results are to be useful and of 
wide application. This is particularly true of crop yields and mar- 



6 BULLETIN" 648^ U. S. DEPAETMEISTT OF AGRICULTUEE. 

ket conditions. Yields in Brooks County for the year covered by 
this study (1914) were approximately noraial for all crops except 
cotton, which made yields somewhat above the average. This high 
yield would tend to a certain extent to present results bearing on 
the cotton crop in a too favorable light. 

However, the market price of cotton during the year studied was 
low, owing to conditions growing out of the European war. The 
average 5-year price received by these 106 farmers was estimated 
by them to be 10.4 cents per pound of gross lint, whereas for the 
1914 crop they received 7.1 cents, or about 32 per cent below normal. 
Undoubtedly this estimated 5-year price of cotton was conservative, 
a fact which would tend to counterbalance the effect of the rather 




Pig. 8. — Woodland constitutes approximately lialf of the farm area. The prevailing 
timber is the long leaf pine, which is rapidly being turpentined. 

large yield. To correct the effect of this abnormalit^y, the average 
price received by each farmer for cotton during the preceding 5-year 
period was substituted for the 1914 price in figuring the returns 
from the farm. 

The price of w:atermelons fell during the shipping season to a 
low figure, with the result that many of the farmers, j)articularly 
those who had a late crop, received a very low price for a part of 
the crop, and many melons which otherwise would have been mar- 
ketable were not even harvested. The average price received for 
the melons sold from farms studied was $52.11 per carload, whereas 
the estimated average 5-year price amounted to $57.80. In every 
case where the price received was abnormal, the farmer's estimated 
5-year average price was substituted. 

Market conditions were normal for all crops sold except cotton 
and melons, and it is believed that with these substitutions men- 



A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 7 

tioned the results of this survej'^ represent a close approximation 
to- average conditions. It is true, however, that the cattle market 
was somewhat low, but this affected appreciably the income from 
only three of the farms. Also the price of hogs was slightly 
depressed, but not sufficiently so to warrant substitutions. 

Xumerous losses from hog cholera occurred throughout the county, 
and on a few of the farms studied such losses w ere serious, but taken 
together these losses represented approximately the average losses 
from that source during the preceding years. 

TYPE OF FARMING. 

Table II shows how the farm area is divided. The 106 farms 
surveyed average in size 331 acres, of w^hich less than half, or 145 
acres, are devoted to planted crops. Scarcely any idle crop land 



ITEIMS 



INVESTMENT PER FARM 

*I000 2000 3000 4000 5000 *6000 



REAL E5TAT E 
LIVE STOCK 
FEED & SUPPLIES 
IMPLEMEKTTS aM'CH'm 
CASH 



'6788 
1064 
615 
331 
134 



imffs!Sii!r<!^m!s^»yA:!^msiimmi^^^^^m^smii:^i!i 



I1S4- •300 *3fe«- 



Fig. 4. — Distribution of farm investment. 

is found, and less than 2 acres per farm of pasture in rotation. 
Permanent pasture, other than woods pastured, includes less than 
8 acres per farm, slightly more than half of which is tillable. The 
remaining farm area (see fig. 3), or 53.3 per cent of the total acreage, 
consists of woods and w^aste land. About one-fifth of the woods 
and waste land, or 11.4 per cent of the total farm area, either can 
not be brought under cultivation at all, or not without a large outlay, 
since it consists of roads, ponds, and swampy areas near the streams. 
A like area of the woodland is fenced and utilized as pasture, leav- 
ing exactly one-fifth of the farm area in woodland that could be 
cleared but is actually used only as a source of wood, lumber, and 
turpentine, and as a public range. The woodland, if fenced, fur- 
nishes a low-grade pasture which serves mainly to tide the live stock 
over the late winter, spring, and early summer period when the 
crop area as now organized does not provide sufficient pasturage. 
The unfenced woodland serves a like pui-pose, it being a common 
practice to allow cattle and hogs to graze the public roads and 
range. The woodland is covered for the most part with longleaf 
pine, some of which is being turpentined preparatory to lumbering 
and clearing, while more is held as a source of firew^ood and future 
lumber supply. Several turpentine stills and sawmills are in opera- 
tion in the county. 

27202°— 18— Bull. 648 2 



8 BULLETIN" 648, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 

Table II. — Distribution of farm area {106 farms, Brooks County, Ga.). 



Total 
acres 
per 

farm. 


Acres of 
crop 

land per 
farm. 


Per cent of farm area m — 


Crop 
land. 


"Woods 
pastured. 


Other 
pasture. 


"Woods 

not 

pastured. 


"Waste, 

swamp, 

etc. 


Total 

woods 

and 

waste. 


331 


145 


43.9 


11.4 


2.8 


30.5 


11.4 


53.3 



DISTRIBUTION OF CAPITAL. 



The average capital per farm and the manner in which that capital 
is distributed among its different elements are shown in figure 4. 
Three-fourths of the average farm capital consists of real estate, 
leaving one-fourth as working capital; and nearly three- fourths of 



ITEMS 


u O li- 
(E (T „. 

< 0. 


E 3 
t 5 


ACRES PER FARM 
10 20 30 40 


50 


CORN 

PEANUTS 

COTTON 

OATS 

COWPEAS 

WATERMELONS 

RYt 

MISCEL. 


55.0 

45.2 

38. 1 

26.6 

1 5.0 

7.7 

6.0 

7.5 


37 9 

31.2 

263 

18.3 

10.3 

5.3 

4.1 

5.2 








^^a^>->>^^^^iii'i^^^^iii^^ 








Kamaiiiiiiiiiiiii 





I First Crop ^ Setood & Intcrploo ttd Oops 

Fig. 5. — Acres of crops per farm. 



the real estate value consists of land ($4,970). The average dwelling 
is worth $1,154, and the average values per farm of the tenants' 
houses and other buildings equal $300 and $364, respectively. Nearly 
half of the remaining investment consists of live stock, and more 
than 60 per cent of this is work stock. For every aere of land in 
crops, these farms had $7.34 invested in live stock, $4.66 in feeds and 
supplies, and $2.28 in implements and machinery. 

The average market price of the land of these farms was found 
to be $20.50 per acre, while the crop land alone was valued at $30.30 
per acre and would rent for $3.09. Thus the renting value amounts 
to approximately 10 per cent of the market value of the crop land. 
But it should be borne in mind that this rent is based on the land in 
its present state of fertility, which has been built up by the extensive 
growing and pasturing off of such crops as peanuts. If cropped for 
several successive seasons with cotton, this light, sandy soil would 
then rent for much less. A large part of the woodland other than 
waste is valued at but little less than the crop land, since it carries 



A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 9 

merchantable timber that would pay for bringing the land into 
cultivation. Its value is included in the investment of the farm. 
While most of it gives but little or no direct return, and since it 
represents so large a proportion of the area, the inclusion of its 
value in the capital gives the farm a lower per cent return on the 
investment and a lower labor income than it otherwise Would show. 

CROPS. 

The relative acreages of the principal crops grown on these farms 
are shown in figure 5. Corn represents the largest acreage, occupying 
37.9 per cent of the whole crop area, while peanuts follow, with 31.2 




Fig. 0. — Corn and peanuts arc commonly planted in alternate rows. This is a sound 

practice (see page 54 1. 

per cent : cotton comes third with 26.3 per cent ; and oats fourth with 
18.3 per cent. However, more than four-fifths of the acreage planted 
in peanuts consists of peanuts planted in corn, and hence is to that 
extent a duplication of the area reported in corn. Throughout this 
bulletin peanuts planted in corn are thus treated as a second crop. 
(See fig. 6.) 

That cotton occupies a more important place on these farms than 
its relative acreage would indicate will be shown by a later table. 
Cowpeas for hay occupy fifth place in point of acreage, though this 
is nearly all a second crop, being planted after oats, rye, or water- 
melons. Watermelons come next with 5.3 per cent of tlie crop area, 
followed in importance by rye with 4.1 per cent. More than one- 
third of the rye acreage is grown wholly for grazing and as a winter 
cover crop, while other rye and much of the oats also furnish spring 
and winter pasture in addition to the grain han^ested. The miscel- 
laneous crops include sweet potatoes, sugar cane for sirup, sorghum, 
velvet beans, Irish potatoes, cucumbers, chufas, millet, and a few 
others. These miscellaneous crops occupy relatively unimportant 



10 



BULLETIN 648, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



acreages. However, they have an important phxce in the economy of 
the farm. 

LIVE STOCK. 

Brooks County has long been known for its live stock, particularly 
swine. The relative numbers of animal units ^ of the different 
classes of live stock found are shown in figure 7. Cattle constitute 
slightly more than half of the animal units, excluding work stock, 
while hogs make up more than nine-tenths of the remainder. Most 
of the farms keep a sufficient number of milk cows and poultry to 
supply the family needs, and in many cases a small surplus for sale 
on the local market ; but on none of the farms is dairying or poultry 
raising otherwise important, owing to the limited local market for 
such products. A number of farms in the county make a practice of 
feeding cattle, securing, some of the feeders from the other farms in 
this and in adjoining counties, and shipping others in from Florida. 
Three such farms are included in this survey. 





ANIMAL 








ITEMS 


UNITS 

PER 

FARM 




ANIMAL UMITS PER FARM 
5 10 15 


20 


ALL LIVE STOCK 
CATT LE 


2 8.6 
1 2.2 


1 


^^ 


H 




SWINE 


1 1. 1 


^^am 


■1 




WORK STOCK 


4.4- 


^m 






poultry' 


.7 


1 






OTHERS 


.2 









Pig. 7. — Number of animal units per farm of different classes of live stock. 

On a very few farms colts are grown, but nearly all the work stock 
is shipped in from other States. Bees are kept on a number of farms, 
but on only 4 farms studied were they an important source of income. 
One farm kept sheep and several supported a few goats. 

The number of animal units of cattle carried slightly exceeds 
those of hogs, but the latter in reality occupy much the more im- 
portant place in the business of these farms, as is brought out in 
Table III. 

Table III. — Average value per animal unit of receipts from cattle, hogs, and 
poultrii {106 farms. Brooks County, Ga.). Receipts include sales, increased 
inventories, and products consumed in the farm home. 



Item. 


Cattle. 


Hogs. 


Poultry. 




$9.68 
9.73 


$37.60 
11. £0 


842.25 




65.35 








19.41 


49.40 
9.88 


107. 60 










oThe equivalent of a 200-poun(l hog. 

It will be seen that hogs gave returns amounting to two and a half 
times as much per animal unit as did the cattle, or $49.40 as com- 



1 An animal unit is a mature cow or horse, or as many other animals as consume an 
equivalent amount of feed. Two colts or young stock, 5 hogs, 10 pigs, 7 sheep, or 100 
poultry constitute this unit. 



A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. H 

pared with $19.41. Nearly half of the receipts from cattle consisted 
of dairy products sold and consumed in the lumie, the balance being 
mostly cattle sold on the hoof. The low receipts per animal unit 
from cattle are due to the low grade of most of the native stock kept, 
and to the presence of the cattle tick in the county when these records 
were taken. A strong effort is being made to eradicate the tick and 
to improve the breed of cattle kept. The hogs grown are mostly 
grade stock of fair to good quality. 

SOURCES OF INCOME. 

One means of measuring the importance of the different farm 
enterprises is by the receipts from each in the form of sales and in- 
creases in inventories. Figure 8 shows graphically the sources of 
farm receipts and the relative importance of each, measured by this 
standard. It is seen that cotton is by far the most important single 
source of income, furnishing half of all the farm receipts,^ that term 

^ Definitions. — The terms defined below will be used frequently throughout this 
bulletin. 

Farm receipts include all sales from the farm and increase of inventories of live stock, 
feeds, supplies. 

Farm expenses include all current cash expenditures, the value of farm labor per- 
formed by the family (except the operator), depreciation on buildings and equipment, 
and decreases in inventories of live stock and feed and supplies. 

Gross farm income is tlie sum of all farm sales, plus any increases in inventories. 
The net farm income is the difference between this sum and the sum of all farm 
expenses. For convenience, the term farm income is used to designate the net farm 
income. 

Labor income is the sum that the operator has left for his own labor and management 
after deducting from the farm income the interest on his investment figured at the 
current rate on well-secured farm loans. In this study 8 per cent interest is the rat<> 
used. Frequently prices of land are infiuenced by factore other than the present earning 
power for farming purposes. In such cases it is bettor, when calculating labor Income, 
to use the interest on the working capital plus the net rent from the real estate instead 
of the interest on the investment. In this study these two methods of calculation gave 
essentially the same result, hence the simpler one was used. 

Farmer's rarniiifjs represent the sum of the labor income plus what the farm furnishes 
toward the living of the operator and all others living or boarding in the farm home. 

Farm-management surveys have shown that the farm returns are largely dependent 
upon size of the business. For many purposes it is desirable that the factor of size be 
eliminated in order that farms of different sizes may be grouped together and compared. 
For this purpose the index of earnings is used herein. This factor is determined as 
follows : All farms of similar size 'are grouped together and the average farmer's earnings 
for each group is computed. The farmer's earnings of each farm in a given group is then 
compared with the average for that group, the group average being expressed as 100. 
Therefore, the index of earnings is the farmer's earnings expressed as a percentage of 
the farmer's earnings for all farms of a similar size. For example, if a farm shows an 
index of earnings of 110, it means that the farm in question returned farmer's earnings 
10 per cent larger than did the average farm of a similar size. 

The per cent return on investment is computed by deducting the value of the farmer's 
labor from the net farm income and dividing the remainder by the total capital invested. 
This figure expresses the profits of the business as that term is ordinarily used in the 
business world, and is nearly independent of the size of the farm. Obviously, this factor 
would have little value in comparing tenants with owner farms, but in this stiidy all 
farms have been reduced to the same tenure, namely, that of owners who operate their 
own farms. 

The per cent return on investment eliminates the factor of size even more completely 
than does the index of earnings. These two terms express the profits of the business 
from different points of view, one ascribing the prifits to capital and the other to the 
operator's labor and management. Both having been found very useful in this study, 
and are the ones used throughout as the principal measures of farm efficiency. 



12 



BULLETIN 648, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



as here used not including products consumed on the farm. Hogs 
furnish the next largest returns, with 15,7 per cent of the total 
receipts, followed by oats and rye taken together, watermelons, corn, 
and cattle, these ranging in order from 6.1 per cent to 4.4 per cent 
of all receipts. But when the value of the products consumed in the 
farm home is added to the sales, the order is changed, hogs taking 
second place- followed by cattle, corn, miscellaneous crops, oats and 
rye, and watermelons. The miscellaneous crops include in order of 
importance sweet potatoes, peanuts, Irish potatoes, cabbage, etc. 
Other and less important sources of receipts or increases of inven- 
tories of feed and supplies are poultry and eggs, sugar-cane sirup 
(see fig. 9), cowpea hay, receipts from miscellaneous sources, and 
live stock other than cattle, hogs, and poultry. The last named con- 



ITEIMS 








5 200 


RECCIPTS PER FARM 
400 600 800 1000 *I200 


COT TON 

SWINE 


(.ig 


»_ 

131 


50.2 
IS 1 






■■K^sVMJ 


CfrTTUE AND PRODUCTS 


116 


119 


44 


■K^^^ii^ 




CORN 


l«8 


n 


56 


■■i^ 




MisCtH.«NEOUS CROPS 


€9 


96 


2 6 


^^"^^ 




OATS AND R'E 


163 


- 


6 1 


^■B 




WATERMELONS 


155 


6 


58 


■1^ 




FEEDAND SUPPLIES 


81 


- 


30 


■■ 




POULTRY AND EGGS 


30 


46 


II 


^ 




SUGAR CANE AND SYRUP 


AO 


Z4 


15 


iO 




COWPEA HAY 


*b 


- 


n 


■ 




MISCELLANEOUS RtCPTS 


46 


- 


11 


■ 




OTHER LIVE STOCK 


16 


^ 




1 


B TAHn RtCtlPT&O COMSuMtD IM THt rA,NR MOnC, 



Fig. 8. — Sources of farm receipts iind products consumed in the liome. 

sists of sales of honey and a very few colts, sheep, and goats. The 
miscellaneous receipts come from labor performed off of the farai, 
sales of wood, lumber and turpentine rights, tolls from gristmills, 
and rents from farm buildings, balers, and thrashing machines. 

The value of swine products consumed in the farm home was 
found to equal nearly one-third as much as receipts from sales of 
such products. In the case of cattle, these two items were of almost 
identical value (see Table III), while the value of poultry products 
and of miscellaneous crops used on the farm greatly exceed the sales 
therefrom. 

The inethod of measuring the size of any enterprise by direct re- 
ceipts therefrom does not give the proper weight to the feed and pas- 
ture crops, the major part of which are consumed by the live stock 
on the farm. The total value of the crops grown is, for many pur- 
poses, a better measure, and when this measure is used the corn crop 



A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 



13 



ranks next to cotton, equaling half the value of that crop. The pea- 
nut crop then ranks fourth, and the oats, rye, hay, and sweet potato 
orops assume more importance than the receipts would indicate. 
A considerable part of the last-named crop is grown for hog j^asture. 




Fig. 9. — Grinding sugar cane and evainiraunj; the sirup. Nearly every farm in ihis sec- 
tion grows a patch of sugar cane, and on many of the farms the sirup is a source of 
cash receipts. 

CURRENT EXPENSES. 

•The current expenses include 82 per cent of the total farm expenses 
for the year if w^e do not consider the value of the operator's own 
service ($405) as a farm expense. The remaining 18 per cent con- 
sists of depreciation of buildings, machinery, and work stock, and de- 
creases in the inventories of live stock and feeds and supplies. 

The amounts and the relative importance of the principal items 
of current expenses are shown in figure 10. Labor constitutes more 
than half of these expenses, and half of this labor expense consists of 
cropper labor ($400). The latter represents the difference between 
the value of the cropper's share of the crops he produces and his ex- 
pense for seed, fertilizer, and ginning, bagging, and ties. Wage 
labor equals 38 per cent of the labor expense, and the unpaid family 
labor makes up the remaining 12.5 per cent. Commercial fertilizers 
constitute slightly less than one-fifth of the current expenses, and 
feeds purchased less than one-twentieth. The three remaining im- 
portant items of expense are, in order, repairs to buildings, fences, 
iind machinery; ginning, bagging and ties; and taxes. 

TENURE AND LANDLORD'S PROFITS. 

Of the 100 farms included in this study, only 7 were operated by 
tenants. Of these^ 5 paid a cash rent and 2 gave a stated amount of 



14 



BULLETTlsr 648, U. s. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICtTLTUEE. 



lint cotton. However, 13 of the farm owners rented land in addition 
to the land owned, and 19 rented out parts of their farms, leaving 67 
straight owner-operators. For these areas rented out a stated cotton 
rent or " standing " rent was the usual form of payment. No in- 
stances were found of entire farms rented for a share of the crop, 
though it is a common practice for single fields to be rented for a 
share of the crop grown, that crop usually being watermelons. 

On 33 farms that were rented in whole or in part, and for which 
the rent paid was cash or" standing "rent, it was possible to calculate 



ITEMS 


ZW C 
UJ 2 < 

ir iij li- 
o: 0- E 

D X UJ 
O IJ 0- 


Ljii. py 
a. o oj 


CURRENT EXPENSES PER FARM 
*3 00 6 00 9 00 *I2 00 


TOTAL CURRENT EXPE.NSE5 


tl4l6 
607 
264 


1 00. o 
57.0 
1 6.6 




LABOR (EXCEPT OPERATOR) 
COMMERICAL FERTILIZER 


«400 tjot »lO[ 


Mi5^5^^g^^S5^=?fe^i5^^:4ii=i?i^sv«:d 




FEED PURCHASED 


69 


4.9 


■ 


REPAIRS 


60 


4.2 


■ 


GINNING, BAOeiNG CtTIES 


54- 


3.8 


■ 


TAXE.S 


. 48 


3.4 


■ 


MISCELLANEOUS 


1 14- 


8.1 


■ 



I CROPPER LABOR 



Fig. 10.- 



^ WAGE LABOR (i^ FAMILY LABOR 

-Items of current expenses. 



the landlord's net return. After deducting taxes, depreciation on 
buildings and all other expenses, the landlord's net profit was found 
to be 8.25 per cent of the market price of the land. 

Since so few tenant farms were found and it was desired to have 
all the farms on a common basis for comparison, all the farms 
rented in whole or in part were reduced to an owner-operator basis. 
This was done by adding the landlord's investment, receipts, and 
expenses to those of the operator, thus treating the operator as an 
owner. The parts of the farms that were rented out were eliminated 
from the farm business by deducting the investment, receipts, and 
expenses involved. 

LABOR SYSTEMS. 

WAGE SYSTEM. 

Two distinct systems of hiring labor are found here, as through- 
out the cotton belt. One is the wage system and the other is the 
share cropper, or cropper, system. Usually the laborers hired by 
the month are contracted for in January for a period extending to 
the beginning of cotton picking. The usual monthly wage varies 
from $10 to $15 per month, with or without rations; besides which 



A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 15 

usually a house and often a garden plot are furnished. Much labor 
is also hired by the day during certain seasons, and it is very com- 
mon to hire by the "piece," the units being 100 pounds of cotton 
picked, an acre of crop "chopped" or hoed, a bushel of peanuts 
harvested or shelled, etc. Much of the day and "piece" work is 
done by women and children. 

CROPPER SYSTEM. 

Under the cropper sj^^stem the laborer usually receives, in lieu of 
a cash wage, one-half share of crops he grows, and he is charged 
with half the cost of the fertilizer, ginning, bagging and ties, and 
sometimes half of the cost of seed used. The operator furnishes 
everything else, including work stock and all tools and equipment. 
In some cases the operator keeps all the cotton seed and in return 
does not charge the cropper for any of the fertilizer. Several other 
minor variations in the contract occur. In Brooks County the crop- 
per is usually required to plant peanuts between the rows of the 
greater part of his corn. The peanut crop is almost always pas- 
tured off by hogs, only sufficient seed being gathered to replace that 
used for planting. In some instances the operator buys the cropper's 
share of the peanut pasture, but more commonly the cropper must 
have his own hogs to gather his crop if he is to profit by it. 

By many persons the cropper is mistaken for a share tenant. 
But in this section, at leasts he is regarded as a wage hand who re- 
ceives his wages in the form of a share of the crop. He furnishes 
nothing but labor and is under practically as close supervision in 
the management of his crop as is the laborer employed for a fixed 
wage. 

Most of the hired labor on these farms, both wage hands and 
croppers, are colored. Both labor systems are found on exactly 
half of the farms, including practically all the larger ones. The 
operator usually prefers the wage system and the laborer the crop- 
per system. The reasons for these preferences will appear later 
in this discussion. The cropper is ordinarily considered to be a 
somewhat higher grade of laborer than is the wage hand. 

Table IV shows the average cropper's receipts, expenses, and net 
income per cropper, cotton being figured at the average 5-year 
price, as it is throughout this publication. 
27202°— 18— Bull. 648 ^3 



16 BULLETIN 648, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 

Table IV. — Cropper's receipts, e.rpenses, and net income, per cropper on 53 
farms (124 croppers, Brooks County, Ga.). 

Cropper's receipts : 

Cotton $297.29 

Corn and fodder 68.74 

Peanuts 19.77 

Other 2.90 

Total $388.70 

Cropper's expenses : 

Hired labor 13.56 

Family labor 60.10 

Interest on cash 7.20 

Fertilizer : 36.90 

Ginning, bagging, and ties 11.64 

Seed, etc 1 .86 

Total - 130.26 

Cropper's net income^ 258.44 

Estimated value of cropper's labor 138. 60 

The average cropper's receipts amounted to $388.70, and the av- 
erage expenses to $130.26, leaving a net income to the cropper for his 
labor upon his crops of $258.44, which compares with $138.60 as the 
amount that he would have received for the same labor had he been 
working for wages. In addition to this the cropper worked an 
aA'erage of 13.3 days for wages, most of it for the operator. Included 
in the list of expenses is an item of $60.10, the estimated value of the 
labor of the cropper's family. This item added to the cropper's net 
income gives $318.54 as the amount that the cropper and his family 
would have received for their year's Avork on their crops had cotton 
sold for a normal price. The difference between $258.44 and $138.60 
represents the cropper's recompense for assuming a share of the risk 
of crop failure and a low market. All of the estimates upon which 
these calculations are based were secured from the operator and not 
from the cropper. 

COMPARATIVE YIELDS AND COSTS BY WAGE AND BY CROPPER SYSTEM. 

Table V shows the comparative yields and unit costs of crops 
grown by the systems just described. It will be seen that for each 
crop the average yields secured by the wage system are appreciably 
higher than those by the cropper system, the difference amounting 
to 16 per cent for cotton and solid corn and 8 per cent for corn 
planted with peanuts. These higher yields were undoubtedly due 
to heavier applications of fertilizer, closer supervision by the op- 
erator, and some differences in soil, since the best fields are often re- 
served for the wage crops. 

1 Does not include returns from labor other than on his own crop. 



A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 



17 



Table V. — Comparative yichls aud unit cost of crops by wage and cropper *•//*- 
tcDts {Brooks County, (Ja.). 



' 


Cotton. 


Com (solid). 


Com (with 
peanuts). 


Peanuts Peanuts (with 
(solid). 1 com). 


Item. 


Wage 
sys- 
tem. 


Crop- 
per 

sys- 
tem. 


Wage 
sys- 
tem. 


Crop- 
per 

sys- 
tem. 


Wage 
sys- 
tem. 


Crop- 
per 
sys- 
tem. 


Wage 

sys- 
tem. 


Crop- 
per 
sys- 
tem. 


Wage 
sys- 
tem. 


Crop- 
per 
sys- 
tem. 




93 


53 


47 


14 


77 


43 


49 


4 76 


42 






Average yield of principal 
products 


o316 


o272 


6 15 6 13 


6 13 


6 12 


Pastured. Pastured. 

1 1 1 . 


Cost per unit of principal 
products: 
To cropper 


$0 093 


$0.0'-0 
.097 


"$6."83" 


80.48 
1.20 


"$6."67' 


$0..38 
.93 




$2.56 
7.53 




81.74 
.366 














Average or total for sys- 


.093 


.089 


.83 


.84 


.67 


.66 


11.09 


10.09 


5.70 


5.40 









a Pounds of lint. 



b Bushels. 



Under the wage system the average cost per pound of lint cotton 
is 9.3 cents, while under the cropper system the average cost to all 
parties concerned is 8.9 cents. But the share of the crop that goes 
to the operator costs the latter 9.7 cents a pound. From the stand- 
point of the laborer, the cropper system gives better financial re- 
sults. This is as it should be, for the cropper assumes a part of 
the risk incident to production, which the wage hand does not. In 
case of partial or total crop failure the cropper loses the use of all 
or part of his time, while the wage hand receives the same, or nearly 
the same, income as in normal years. 

In the case of corn, the total average cost is approximately the 
same by both systems, being 83 to 84 cents a bushel. But under the 
cropper system there is a wide divergence between the cost to cropper 
ancl operator of the share of the crop each receives. The cropper's 
share of the corn costs him only 48 cents a bushel (38 cents when 
interplanted with peanuts), while the operator's share of cropper 
corn costs the operator $1.20 (93 cents wnth peanuts in the corn). 
This divergence is so great that it is not surprising that many oper- 
ators who willingly accept share rent from croppers for cotton insist 
on cash rent for land devoted to corn, with the result that on cotton 
plantations generally a much larger proportion of corn than of 
cotton is grown under the wage system. 

The major part of the operator's share of the cost of the cropper's 
crops consists of w^ork stock, labor, and the use of the land. The 
details of these oats are shown in Table XX (see p. 52).. It should 
be borne in mind throughout this publication that the term " costs " 
covers every charge, including cost of supervision and wages for the 
farmer, the cropper, and their families. 



18 



BULLETIN 648, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



SIZE OF BUSINESS. 

Farm-management surveys, this one. included, have uniformly 
shown that the size of the farm business is probably the most impor- 
tant factor in determining the returns the farmer secures for his 
j^ear's work. It is obviously impossible to secure a large return from 
a business of small volume, even if the margin of profit be a wide one. 
On the other hand, the larger the business the greater the possibility 
of both profits and losses. The influence of the size of the farm 
business on the returns is shown in Table VI. The sources and 
amounts of the farm receipts and expenses, and the net returns, 
presented from several different points of view, are shown for the 
groups of farms of different sizes and for the white and colored 
farmers separately. 

Table VI. — Relation of size of farm and race of operator to farm receipts, 
expenses, and net income {Brooks County, Ga.). 





Farms with total crop area 


of— 


All 
farms. 


All 
wlute 
opera- 
tors. 


All col- 
ored 
opera- 
tors. 


Item. 


Less 
than 

50 
acres. 


50 to 

74 
acres. 


75 to 

149 

acres. 


150 to 

249 
acres. 


250 
acres 

and 
over. 




18 


24 


27 


21 


16 


106 


86 


20 








33 


63 


111 


192 


389 


145 


166 


54 








$2, 091 


$4,049 


$7, 180 


$11,110 


$24, 500 


$8,992 


$13,329 


■ $3,275 






Receipts: 


$413 

101 

35 

11 


$R45 
185 
39 
23 


$1, 420 

460 

92 

70 


$2, 560 

931 

99 

14 


$5, 527 

1,482 

1.55 

118 


$1,964 

584 

81 

46 


$2,213 
702 
87 
49 


$896 


Live stock (exclusive of work stock)... 


80 
53 




31 






Total receipts 


5f.O 


1,092 


2,0!2 


3,604 


7,282 


2,675 


3,051 


1,060 






Expenses: 


$232 
44 
21 

37 


8541 
88 
40 

63 


$996 
124 
83 

71 


$1,846 
172 
138 

114 


$4, 195 

325 

92 

198 


$1,416 
142 
75 

90 


$1, 639 
158 

84 

101 


$453 




73 




36 


Decrease live stock (including work 


42 








334 


732 


1,274 


2,270 


4,810 


1,723 


1,982 


604 








$226 
167 


$360 
324 


$768 
575 


$1,334 

888 


$2,471 
1,959 


$952 
720 


$1,069 
826 


$456 




262 








59 

267 

12 

33 


39 

377 

14 

53 


193 

479 

14 

98 


446 

544 

16 

133 


512 

612 

18 

306 


232 

453 

15 

116 


2)3 

507 

15 

132 


194 




228 




14 




<0 








371 

$61 


480 
$118 


784 
$98 


1,139 
$119 


1,448 
$102 


816 
$101 


897 

$88 


476 




$159 






Familv earnings 


432 


598 


882 


1,258 


1.550 


917 


985 


635 






Estimated value of operator's labor 


$153 


$270 


$372 


$442 


$900 


$405 


$446 


$231 




4.4 


4.6 


6.4 


8.9 


6.7 


6.2 


6.2 


6.2 







a Unweighted averages. 



A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 19 

It is seen that the average receipts, expenses, and net farm income 
(or farm income)^ for the different groups vary in almost direct pro- 
portion to the size of the farm. The same is true of both the hibor 
income and the farmer's earnings. Thus the fann income varies f i-om 
$226 for the smallest-farm size group to $2,471 for the largest-farm 
group, giAang an average of $1,069 for all of the white farmers, $456 
for the colored, and $952 for all the farms taken together. This 
figure represents the fund available for the living of the farmer and 
his family, provided he owns his farm unmortgaged, in addition to 
the unpaid family labor and the products furnished directly by the 
farm. This is of special interest to the unmortgaged farm owner. 

When the earnings of the farm capital, or interest upon the value 
of the farm tind equipment, is subtracted from the farm income, the 
difference is called labor income. This item varies among the differ- 
ent groups of farms from $58 for the smallest farm to $512 for the 
largest one, with an average of $232 for all farms. The labor income 
is the measure of farm efficiency used in most farm-management sur- 
veys. It is of special concern to the tenant and the farmer who car- 
ries a mortgage. It must be remembered, however, that it does not 
take into account the living that the farmer and his family get di- 
rectly from the farm. 

When the items last named, consisting of food, fuel,- and house 
rent,^ are added to the labor income, the sum is what in this publica- 
tion is called the farmer's earnings. This sum varies on these groups 
of farms from $370 for the smallest farm size group to $1,448 for the 
largest farm group, with averages of $897, $476, and $816 for the 
white, colored, and all farms, respectively. The farmer's earnings are 
the measure of farm returns that has been used more than any other 
throughout this study. 

The farmer's earnings do not include the value of the unpaid 
family labor. The latter averaged $101, and when added to the 
former equals what is shown in the table as family earnings. This 
figure represents the value of all that the farmer and his family secure 
from the farm in addition to the interest on the farm investment. It 
is the amount that the tenant would have for a living for himself and 
family. The sum of this figure and the interest on the investment 
represents the total net returns that the unmortgaged farm owner and 
his family secure from his farm, the average amount of which varies 
from $599 on the smallest farm group to $3,509 on the largest farm 
group, and $1,811, $897, and $1,637 for all white, all colored, and all 
farms, respectively. 

1 Soe definition in footnotp, p. 13. 

2 Farm value of wood (uncut) used in tlie farm liome. This does not include wood 
used by croppers and wa;j;e liands. However, tlie latter is included in labor costs in 
calculating costs of production. 

^ Ten per cent of the present value of the dwellinR (not the cost when new) is taken 
to cover the interest, taxes, and Insurance. 



20 BtJLLETIISr 648, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 

A further study of Table VI shows that on the hirger farms the op- 
erators live in much better houses and secure much greater values of 
food products from the farm than do those on the smaller farms. 
Between the extreme size groups the values of family food furnished 
by the farm varies from $267 to $612, and the average rental value of 
the houses from $33 to $306. 

On the farms of the smallest farm group the value of family living 
obtained from the farm actually exceeded the net income from all 
other sources by 39 per cent, but on those of the largest farm group 
the family living furnished equaled only 38 per cent of all of the 
other net receipts. In other words, on the small farms the family 
living obtained is an all-important factor, while on the larger farms 
it is relatively a secondar}^ consideration. 

Another method of measuring the profits of the farm is to sub- 
tract the value of the farmer's labor from the farm income and call 
the remainder returns on the capital. Figured in this way, and 
not considering the item of family living obtained, these farms 
returned an average of 6.2 per cent on the investment. On the two 
groups of smaller farms the per cent returns were lowest, while on 
the fourth group, or good-sized family farms, they were highest. 

QUALITY OF FARM BUSINESS. 

CROP YIELDS. 

On farms of a given size the yields secured constitute perhaps 
the most important factor in determining the farm profits. In 
Table VII the farms are grouped according to the average yield of 
crops. The group of farms that have the lowest yields have an 
average crop index ^ of 69, which means that the crop yields equaled 
but 69 per cent of the average yields secured by all of the farms. 
This group of farms returned average farmer's earnings ^ of $586, 
while for the other groups the crop indexes were 92, 104, and 126, 
and the farmer's earnings $708, $840, and $1,061, respectively. But 
the farmer's earnings are largely determined by the size of the farm. 
To eliminate the element of size and see the effect of crop yields 
independently, the index of earnings ^ and the per cent return on 
investment are shown. The group of farms with the lowest yields 
gave an index of earnings of 80, or in other words, farmer's earnings 

1 The crop index represents the relative yields of all crops on any farm or group of 
farms as compared with the average yield of all crops on all the farms in the survey, 
the latter being expressed as 100. For method of calculating, see Department of Agri- 
culture Bulletin 341, p. 75. The index here used is weighted, the acreage of each crop 
being weighted in proportion to tlie average amount of man labor expended on an acre of 
that crop. This weighting is necessary because of the wide difference in the relative 
intensity of the crops grown and of the different proportions in which these crops are 
combined on the different farms. 

- See definitions in footnote, p. 13. 



A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 



21 



which equal but 80 per cent of the average farmer's earnings secured 
froin farms of similar size. On the other groups of farms with in- 
creasing average crop yields, the index of earnings increased regu- 
larly to 116, while the corresponding returns on investment increased 
similarly from 2.9 per cent to 8.2 per cent. 



Table VII. — Relation of crop index to farm returns {Brooks County, Ga.). 



Crop index.a 


Number 
of farms. 


Average 

crop 

index. 


Farmer's 
earnings. 


Index of 
earnings. 


Per cent 
retmn on 
invest- 
ment. 




13 
43 
21 
29 


69 
. 92 
104 
126 


8586 

708 

840 

1,061 


80 
87 
108 
116 


2.9 


O.SO to O.'Jft : 


5.6 


1.00 to 1.0'J 


6.7 




8.2 








106 


100 


816 


100 


6.2 













a See definition of crop index on p. 22. 

The close dependence of profits upon crop yields can be shown 
more concretely by considering for each crop separately the relation 
between costs and yields. This relation is shown by Table VIII.^ 
In the case of every crop, as the yields increased the cost per unit of 
crop decreased regularly, while the profits per acre correspondingly 
increased. Thus, the cotton yields of less than 200 pounds per acre 
of net lint cost 11. G cents per pound to produce, but this cost de- 
creased to 7.5 cents per pound when the yields exceeded 400 pounds 
per acre. The low yields mentioned show a loss of $1.G3 per acre, 
while the high yields returned an acre profit of $18.19. The farms 
that secured the higher yields of cotton were the ones which also 
returned the largest net profits for the y<?ar's business. Thus the 
farms that secured cotton yields of less than 200 pounds per acre 
returned farmers' earnings equal to only 47 per cent of the average 
returned by all farms of a similar size, whereas the farms yielding 
more than 100 pounds per acre returned earnings 37 per cent larger 
than the average. 

1 It will be noticed that the number of rocords for cotton nnd corn aro greater than 
the number of farms surveyed. This is due to the fact that the costs of the wage crops 
have been kept separate from those of the croppers, since the two sets of crops are 
handled by more or less independent systems and are treated difl'erently. Thus, many of 
the farms furnish two separate records of costs of cotton and corn. In this and one or 
two other tabulations these separate records have been treated as though coming from 
different farms. 



22 



BULLETIN 648, U. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGRICtTLTURE. 



Table VIII. — Relation of crop yields to costs per crop unit and profits per acre 

(Brooks County, Ga.). 



Crop. 


Yield. 


Number 
of farms. 


Average 
acre 
yield. 


Cost per 
crop 
unit. 


Profit 
or loss, 

per 
acre, 


' 


f Under 200 pounds 


15 

43 
17 


172 
258 
338 
450 


$0,116 
.091 
.078 
.075 


$1 63 




1 200 to 299 pounds 


5.29 




|300 to 399 pounds 


7 96 




|400 and over 


18 19 




Average 






143 


299 


.091 


7 04 




f Under 10 bushels 






12 

33 

11 

5 


9.3 
13.4 
17.8 
24.2 


1.26 
.85 
.73 
.66 


a 4 66 


., 


J 10 to 15 bushels 


a— 1.16 




1 16 to 20 bushels . . 


15 




lOver 20 bushels 


2 54 




Average 






61 


14.3 


.89 


a— 1 31 




(Under 10 bushels 






IS 
37 
33 
32 


8.2 
10.1 
13.6 
16.7 


-.80 
.74 
.70 
.57 


a — .17 




J 10 to 12 bushels . : 


.04 




1 12 to 15 bushels 


.34 




[Over 15 bushels 


2 92 










120 


12.4 


.70 


82 




f Under 10 bushels 






8 

22 
22 
10 

8 


8.4 
11.2 
16.1 
21.5 
27.9 


.84 
.73 
.47 
.37 
.36 


a 2 53 




10 to 15 bushels 


a 1 68 


Oats 


■! 15 to 20 bushels 


1 21 




20 to 25 bushels 


3 42 




Over 25 bushels 


4.44 




Average 






70 


15.8 


.56 


.56 




fUnder 0.5 too. 






16 

37 

5 

8 


.34 

.56 

.82 

1.06 


26.88 
17.20 
12.03 
11.23 


1.74 


Cowpea hay 


lo.5 toO,75 ton. 


.68 


1 0.75 to 1 ton 






5.42 




( 1 ton and over 


8.62 




Average 






66 


.59 


18.57 


1.42 




f Under 0.35 carload 






5 
13 
17 
10 


.29 
.42 
.51 
.70 


73.36 
53.68 
51.26 
41.60 


0—3.69 




I0.35 to 0.49 carload 


1.84 




'|0.50 to 0.59 carload 










0.60 and over 


15.08 




Average 






45 


.50 


52.54 


4.23 




(Under 100 bushels 






7 
12 

7 


70 
100 
162 


.36 
.28 
.22 


14.18 


Sweet potatoes 


\ 100 bushels. . 


27.27 




|Over 100 bushels 


65.01 




Average , 






26 


108 


.29 


33.90 



u Loss. 

These results would indicate that where the market prices and other 
conditions are similar to those found at the time these records were 
taken it is necessary to obtain a cotton yield greater that 200 pounds 
of net lint per acre if a profit is to be secured. But these records 
were taken before the cotton-boll weevil had invaded the county. 
With the expenses of fighting the weevil added, either yields higher 
than 200 pounds per acre, or prices higher than 10 cents per pound 
are necessary if the crop is to show a profit to the grower. 

The data presented also indicate that under the conditions found, 
with corn at an average price of 75 cents per bushel, it is necessary to 
secure a yield above 10 bushels per acre of corn planted in rows alter- 
nating with peanuts, or about 18 bushels of corn planted " solid," if a 
profit is to be shown when figured by cost determination methods. 



A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 



23 



Similarly, oats must yield about 15 bushels to shoAv a profit at an 
ave;,rage price of approximately 50 cents; but -when the yield slightly 
exceeds 25 bushels, the cost is reduced to 36 cents per bushel. The 
latter yields a good margin of profit. 

Cowpea hay j'ielding one-third of a ton to .the acre costs $26.88 per 
ton to produce, and entailed a loss of $1.7-1 per acre. Increasing the 



g 60 

a: 

3 



ItLO IN CARLOADS 



tl2 
10 












\ 


\ 










\ 








.08 




\ 


^-= 


. . 




.06 
C4 






















.02 
























iElO -SWEET POTATOES 



IE LO - COWPtA 




Fig. 11. — Relation of yields of principal crops to cost per crop unit. 

yield to one-half a ton brought the cost down to approximately the 
market price, and increasing it to slightly over a ton reduced the cost 
per ton to $11.23 and resulted in an acre profit of $8.62. 

Watermelon yields of one-third of a carload per acre must bring 
about $75 per car at the point of loading, if the gi-ower is to " break 
27202°— 18— Bull. 648 4 



24 



BULLETIN 648, U. S. DBPAETMENT OF AGRICULTUEE. 



even." But if he increases this yield to half a carload he can sell for 
$50 without loss, and if he further increases the production to two- 
thirds of a car per acre, $40 per load will cover all costs. 

All the yields of sweet potatoes found show a wide margin of 
profit. Average yields of 70 bushels per acre cost 36 cents per 
bushel; increasing the yield to 100 bushels reduced the cost to 28 
cents, while a further increase to 162 bushels further reduced the cost 
to 22 cents. The records for this crop are few in number and repre- 
sent small scale production. But the costs and margins shown would 
indicate that the crop offers commercial possibilities for the grower. 

The manner in which the costs per crop unit decrease with increas- 
ing yields is shown for the six important crops by the curves in 
figure 11. 

There is, of course, for each crop under any set of conditions a 
point beyond which any further increase in yield can be secured only 
at> a cost per unit higher than the returns. On some individual farms 
in Brooks County this point of " diminishing returns " has no doubt 
been reached or exceeded ; but these tabulations show that in no case 
have any of the groups of farms studied brought the crop yields to 
that point. Evidently one of the surest means of increasing the 
profitableness of these farms is the increasing of the crop yields. 

i - UTILIZATION OF WORK-STOCK LABOR. 

The largest item of cost, next to that of man labor, is the cost of 
work stock. In this study it was found to amount to $509 per farm, 
which is approximately equal to half of the cost of all man labor, 
or 19.2 per cent of the cost of producing all farm crops. Figured 
on the basis of the cost per day of productive labor, the work stock 
cost $1.07, as compared with $1.20 for man labor. Manifestly, the 
utilization of work stock so as to keep down this large element of cost 
is one of the chief factors in determining profits on these farms. 



Table IX. — Relation of number of produetive days mule labor per mule to 
farm, returns, acres per m/tde, a/tid cost of mule labor per day (Brooks 
County, Ga.). 



Productive days mule labor per mule. 


Number 
of farms. 


Average 
number 
of mule 

days 
per mule. 


Cost of 

mule 

labor 

per day. 






12 
20 
33 
21 
U 


G2 
.88 
112 
137 
172 


$1.70 


76 to 100 




1.23 


101 to 125 




1.00 


126 to 150 




.84 






.72 












106 1 113 


1.07 













A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 



25 



Increasing the amount of productive labor per mule reduces the 
cost per day of such labor, resulting in a lower cost of production 
and larger farm profits. This is shown by Table IX, in which the 
farms are grouped 
on the basis of the 
number of days of 
labor per mule. On 
the group of farms 
reporting the least 
productice labor per 
mule, or an average 
of 62 days per year, 
the cost per day of 
mule labor amounted 
to $1.70, which daily 
cost decreased regu- 
larly to 72 cents on 
the group reporting 
the most labor, or 172 
days per mule. The 
striking relation be- 
tween increasing days' 
work per mule and 
decreasing cost per 
day of mule labor is 
shown by the curve in 
figure 12. 

It may well be asked 
by what means some 
of the farms provided so much more employment for the work stock 
than did others. The data in Table X indicate that the area culti- 
vated per mule is the most important factor. 

Takle X. — delation of number of acres of crop land per mule to utilization of 
mule labor and to farm returns (Brooks County, Qa.). 




Fig. 12.- 



-Relation of days of productive labor per mule to 
the cost per day. 



Number of acres crop land per 
mule. 


Number 
of farms. 


Average 
acres 
crop 

land per 
mule. 


Acres 
of crop 
land per 

farm. 


Acres 

of cotton 

per 

mule. 


Days 
mule, 
labor 
per 
mule. 


Cost 
of cotton 

per 
pound. 


Index cf 
earnings. 


Loss than 20 


11 

IS 
21 
24 
32 


16 
22 
27 
32 
42 


48 

SI 

113 

144 

233 


0.1 

7.8 
7.9 
9.0 
9.4 


67 
89 
108 
121 
139 


80.095 
.092 
.092 
.083 
.OGO 


80 


2Jlo21.9 


71 


23 to 29.9 

30 to 31 9... 


103 
123 


35 and over 


101 






All farms 


106 


31 


145 


8.6 


113 


.030 


100 











26 BULLETIN 648^ U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 

Acres of crop land per mule. — In Table X the farms are grouped 
according to the amount of crop land worked per mule. The farms 
that have the fewest acres per mule, or an average of 16, secured only 
67 days productive work from each animal, but as the number of 
acres increased, the number of days per mule increased regularly to 
an average of 139 on the group that operated the largest area per 
animal. This increased employment of the work stock resulted in a 
corresponding decrease in the cost per day of productive labor from 
$1.50 to $0.90. Such an economy in so important an item of cost 
must necessarily result in lower costs of production and greater 
profits. The cost of producing cotton decreased from 9^ cents per 
pound on the first-mentioned group of farms fo 8.3 cents on the 
farms that operated 30 or 35 acres per mule, but it increased to 9 
cents on the fanns that had more than 35 acres per animal. This 
result was corroborated by the index of earnings, which increases 
markedly up to the point of 30 to 35 acres per mule. Beyond this 
the profits are less. 

An apparent irregularity appears in that the index earnings were 
greater for the first than for the second group of farms shown in 
Table X. The explanation is that two or three farms with good 
crop yields and a low investment secured a high percentage of re- 
turns in spite of inadequate utilization of work stock. The nmnber 
of farms in the group was insufficient fully to neutralize the influence 
of these few abnormal farms. 

It will be noted that the farms which cultivated the fewest acres 
per mule average smaller in size than those which operated a larger 
area per animal. Undoubtedly the larger farms possess advantages 
which facilitate their organization upon a basis providing for tho 
more efficient employment of work stock labor. 

It may further be stated that the cultivation of an increased number 
of acres per work animal was not at the expense of crop yields. In 
fact, the lowest yields were found in the group that worked the 
smallest area per animal. 

It is not probable that all the differences in costs and profits shown 
can be attributed to the differences in relative employment of work 
stock, for the men who keep their work stock efficiently employed are 
likely to be also more efficient in other respects. But the method of 
gi'ouping used eliminates the effect of other factors as far as pos- 
sible, and it is believed that the influence of area per mule has not 
been greatly overemphasized. 

Farmers are often advised to reduce the number of acres per mule 
in order to cultivate the remaining acres more intensively, but the 
preceding table would seem to show that it is much more important 
to cultivate a sufficient number of acres per work animal to keep that 



A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 



27 



labor efficiently employed. From 30 to 35 acres per mule would 
seem to be the proper acreage under the conditions here found. The 
soil on these fanns is a light sand and is easily cultivated. On a 
heavier type of soil, no doubt, fewer acres per mule would be found 
to be more desirable. 

RELATION OF AMOUNT OF TILLAGE TO COSTS AND PROFITS. 

Much has been said regarding the benefits arising from deep plow- 
ing, " thorough and frequent preparation of the seedbed, and fre- 
quency of cultivation, much of the advice on these points making 
little or no distinction between types of soil. In gathering data for 
the purpose of calculating costs of production in this study, the 
amount of man and mule labor involved in each operation of each 
crop was ascertained for each farm. It is thus possible to study the 
profitableness of different amounts of tillage. 

Using the amount of mule labor expended per acre as probably 
the best available measure of the degree of tillage, the effect of that 
factor upon the profit's and costs of cotton have been tabulated and 
the results shown in Table XI. The cotton crop was used because it 
was the most important crop grown here and because for it the 
largest number of records are available. The figures upon which 
this table is based include all of the mule labor spent on the cotton up 
fo and including the planting of the crop. 



Table XI. — Relation of amount of niidc labor expended in preparatory tillage 
of eotton to costs and, profits (Brooks Cmnitij, Ga.). 



Days mule labor per acre, preparatory tillage. 


Number 

of 
records. 


Average 
mule 
days 

prepara- 
tory 

tillage. 


Yield 
of net 
Hat. 


Profit 
per acre. 


Cost of 
net lint 

per 
pound. 


Less tlian 1.5 


15 
44 
51 
33 


l.li 

1.77 
2.22 
2.89 


Pounds. 
292 
293 
298 
311 


$8.47 
8.37 
6.53 
6.22 


$0,085 


1.5 to 1.9... 


.087 


2.0 to 2.4 


.093 


2.5 and over 


.096 








AH records, 


143 2.12 


299 ' 7.04 


.091 















It will be seen that the increasing amounts of mule labor were ac- 
companied by slowly increasing yields, but that these yields were not 
sufficient to offset the increased cost. Thus the cost per pound of 
net lint cotton increased regularly from 8.5 cents for the group that 
expended less than 1.5 days of mule labor per acre, to 9.6 cents for 
those on which more than 2.5 days were expended. These increased 
costs cut the profits per acre from $8.47 to $6.22. 

The results shown in this table would indicate that the extra labor 
cost involved in the deeper and more prolonged preparatory tillage 



28 



BULLETIN 648, U. S, DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE. 



of cotton is not profitable on the light, sandy soils of this area. A 
similar tabulation based on the total amount of mule labor expended 
on cotton up to the time of harA^esting the crop gave similar results, 
though slightly less pronounced. The results in this case were less 
pronounced because there is less difference in the practices of culti- 
vating the crop after planting than there is up to that time. Similar 
tabulations based on man labor gave less consistent results, since man 
labor is not so good a measure of the amount of tillage, owing to 
the differences in the number of mules used per team. No doubt 
different results would have been found on a heavier type of soil. 

RELATION OF AMOUNT OF FERTILIZER APPLICATIONS TO YIELDS. COSTS, AND 

PROFITS. 

To calculate the cost of production it was necessary to ascertain 
the cost per acre of the fertilizers applied to each crop. The data 
thus gotten permit an interesting study of the relative economy of 
the application of varying amounts of fertilizers on the principal 
crops. Using the cost per acre as a measure of the rate of applica- 
tion, since it is the only common measure for all of the fertilizer 
materials used, the effects on yields, costs, and profits have been 
tabulated for the principal crops, as shown in Table XII. The cost 
covers all classes of fertilizing materials applied, including stable 
manure, cottonseed meal, and commercial fertilizers, the last named 
representing the greater part of the costs. On none of the crops 
tabulated, except sweet potatoes, and possibly watermelons, was stable 
manure an important source of fertilizers. Approximately half the 
farms purchased the raw materials and did the mixing at home, 
while the others used ready-mixed fertilizers. No account has been 
taken of the residual effects of fertilizers applied to preceding crops, 
but these are reduced to a minimum in a region with such a light, 
sandy soil, heavy rainfall, and long growing season ; and in any case 
they tend to neutralize each other when a group of farms are con- 
sidered, as has been done in these tabulations. 



Table XII. — Relation of cost of fertilizer applications to yields, costs, and profits 

(Brooks County, Ga.). 



Crop. 



Cotton. 



Cost of fertilizers per acre. 



$2 and less... 

$no$4 

Si to $6 

$6 to $8 

$S to?10 

110 axid over.. 

Average. 



Average 
Number 1 cost of 
of records, fertilizer 
j per acre. 



$1.42 
3.00 
4.85 
6.78 
8.76 

11.32 

4.32 



Yield 
per acre. 



Povnds. 
a 263 
283 
293 
314 
383 
427 



;ropunit. ^'^^^^^ 



$0. 087 
.088 
.096 
.101 
.094 
.086 

.091 



$7. 4.5 
8.00 
4.83 
4.18 
9.15 

11.00 

7.04 



a Net lint. 



A FABM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 



29 



Tarle Xn. — Relation of cost of fertilizer applications to pichJs, costs, and profits 
{Brooks Coxinty, (la.) — Continued. 



Crop. 


Cost of fertilizers per acre. 


Number 
of records. 


Average 

cost of 

fertilizer 

per acre. 


Yield 
per acre. 


Cost per 
crop unit. 


Profit or 

loss per 

acre. 


Corn, solid 


(81. 50 and less 


28 
22 
11 


$0.70 
1.S9 
4.19 


Bushels. 
13.4 
14.1 
16.7 


$0.85 
.86 
1.03 


0— $0. 79 


|S1. 50 to S2.50 


a- 1.02 
a— 3.40 










61 


1.76 


14.3 


.89 


a— 1.31 










fO 


16 
39 
46 
19 



.97 
1.91 
3.21 


11.2 
11.5 
12.6 
15.1 


.57 
.63 
.74 
.94 


1.72 




1 Under $1.50 


1.44 


Corn, with peanuts 


|S150to$2.50 


.64 




[$2.50 and over 






Average 








120 


1.56 


12.4 


.70 .82 










fO 


55 
15 


14.9 
1.92 19.2 


.55 
.61 


.76 






















Average 


70 


.41 


1.5.8 


.56 


.56 










fS7 and less 


16 
15 
14 


5.86 
7.82 
9.80 


Carload. 

.48 
.50 
.52 


47.60 
50.48 
52.50 


4.06 


Watermelons 

Sweet potatoes 


i$7 toS9 


2.96 


($9 and over.... 


5. SO 






45 


7.75 


.50 


52.54 


4.23 






f$3 and less 


7 
8 
5 
6 


1.93 
3.21 
5.12 
9.55 


Bushels. 
85 
96 
113 
148 


.28 
..30 
.29 
.30 


26.34 


S3 toS4 


26.78 


k4to.S7 








S7 and over. . . 


55.83 












26 


4. 70 lOS 


.29 


33.98 















a Loss. 



It was found that with every crop for which there were a suffi- 
cient number of records to make* tabulations, increasing amounts of 
fertilizer resulted in regular and appreciable increases in yields. But 
with every crop except sweet potatoes the increased yields were 
obtained at a higher cost per unit of crop, with exceptions to be 
noted, and at lower profits per acre. Thus the cost of corn varied 
from 85 cents per bushel, with the least amount of fertilizer, to $1.03, 
with the largest applications; the corn planted with peanuts cost 
57 cents per bushel without fertilizer, w^hich cost increased to 9-1: 
cents when the most fertilizer was applied. The profits per acre 
decreased in even greater proportion than the cost per bushel 
increased. 

Cottoli to which the value of the fertilizers applied amounted to 
less than $2 per acre cost 8.7 cents per pound of net lint to produce. 
But with increasing amounts of fertilizer up to $8 per acre, the cost 
increased to 10.1 cents per pound. Apparently, increasing the fer- 
tilizer applications beyond $8 per acre reduced the cost below the 
high points of the preceding groups. But the small number of 
records for these highest applications renders the results unreliable 
for the last two groups. 



30 BULLETIN 648, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUEE. 

Only 15 out of 70 farmers applied any fertilizer to the oat crop, 
a fact signifying that a large majority of them had not found it to 
be a profitable practice to make such applications. The 15 which 
did use fertilizers, to the extent of $1.92 per acre, increased their 
yield, but in so doing the cost per bushel was increased from 55 cents 
to 61 cents, and a small profit per acre was turned into a slight loss. 

Watermelons are fertilized rather heavily by nearly all growers, 
about 15 per cent of the value of the applications consisting of stable 
manure. The heavier applications resulted in somewhat increased 
yields, but at the expense of higher costs per unit of crop. Thus 
increasing amounts of fertilizers resulted in increasing the cost per 
carload from $47.60 to $50.48 and $52.50, respectively. This increas- 
ing cost per carload resulted in a correspondingly reduced profit per 
acre in the case of the second group, but the last group offers an 
apparent exception in that it shows the largest profit in spite of the 
high cost per carload. The higher prices obtained for the melons 
receiving the most fertilizer were^ no doubt, due to the resulting 
better quality of melons and to the fact that they matured earlier 
and reached a more profitable market than did the melons produced 
on the other farms. Better salesmanship may possibly have been a 
factor in securing the high prices. 

The records for sweet-potato costs are few in number and repre- 
sent only small-scale production. The fertilizers applied consisted 
largely of stable manure a-nd cottonseed meal. The results are there- 
fore not comparable to those obtained from records of other crops. 
The heavier applications were accompanied by much the higher 
yields, and the margin of profit was so wide in every case that the 
higher yields gave much greater profits, though the cost per bushel 
was nearly the same for all groups. 

The conclusion to be drawn from this table would seem to-be that 
on this type of soil, with the type of "farming and the fertilizer 
practice found on these farms, it does not pay to use the larger 
amounts of commercial fertilizers on the common field crops. Water- 
melons may offer a possible exception*, and sweet potatoes are dis- 
tinctly exceptional. It should be remembered that on these farms 
the organic matter in the soil is largely maintained by the extensive 
growing and pasturing off of legumes, particularly peanuts. On a 
heavier type of soil different results would probably have been found. 

ORGANIZATION. 

DIVERSITY. 

Much has been said and written regarding the advantages of a 
diversified type of farming. The greater safety from losses due to 
crop failure or demoralized markets, the better distribution of labor 
throughout the year, and still other benefits arising from diversifi- 



A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 31 

cation have been repeatedly urged and are familiar to nearly every- 
one. Especially was the matter of diversity brought to the atten- 
tion of the farmers of the South by the decline in the price of cotton 
following the outbreak of the European war. More particularly^ 
has the recent advent of the boll weevil into the southeastern part 
of the cotton belt increased the hazard of dependence upon cot- 
ton and made the matter an urgent one with fanners of that section. 
It is of peculiar interest, therefore, to study the farms of a locality 
where a distinctly diversified agriculture, with cotton as the most 
important source of income, has been practiced for a long term of 
years. Such an area is found in Brooks County, which has for 
years been noted for the extent of diversification practiced. This 
is particularly true of the southern half of the county, which is the 
area covered by this survey. It has been pointed out that the soil 
here is a light-gray sand, representative of the Norfolk sandy loam 
and closely related types of that series. On this light soil a certain 
degree of diversification, including the growing of legumes, is a 
necessity if soil fertility is to be maintained at a point where profit- 
able yields may be secured. Necessity, thus, to a large extent, 
accounts for the development of the hog industry in this community. 
Further north in the county the soils become somewhat heavier, grad- 
ing into the t3^pes represented by the Rustan and Tifton series. 
These latter are better adapted to cotton than are the lighter soils 
of the southern part of the county. As a result, cotton is grown 
there more largely to the exclusion of other crops. 

To study the effect of different degrees of diversification upon 
profits, the farms studied have been grouped according to the degree 
of diversity practiced, the measure used being the diversity index.^ 
The results are shown in Table XIII. The most highly diversified 
farms averaged the largest in size. Eliminating the effect of size by 
the use of the index of earnings, it is seen that the least diversifica- 
tion returned 15 per cent less than the average for farms of a similar 
size, while the most diversification returned 16 per cent more than 
the average. It thus appears that under conditions found on these 
farms, with market prices normal, greater diversity means greater 
profits. It should not be overlooked that the least diversified farms 
are largely cotton farms, which carry the risk of both low yields and 
low markets, a risk that in 1914 proved all but disastrous to these 
farmers. 

1 On a farm with enterprises all of equal size, the number of enterprises will be the 
diversity index. For example, a farm with 4 enterprises, all of equal importance, would 
bave a diversity index of 4. However, it is seldom that any two enterprises are of ex- 
actly the same size or importance. The method of calculating the diversity index, how- 
ever, reduces all the enterprises to a comparable basis. For the method of calculating 
the index see Department of Agriculture Bulletin 341, p. 81. 



82 



BULLETIX 648, U. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



Table XIII. 



-Relation of dirersity to cost of tcork-stock labor and to farm 
irrofits {Brooks County, Ga.). 



Diversity Index. 


Number 
q/ farms. 


Average 

diversity 

index. 


Acres of 
crop land 
per farm. 


Cost of 
mule 
labor 

per day. 


Crop 
index. 


Index 

of 

earnings. 




27 
54 
25 


1.5 
3.0 

4.7 


89 
147 
194 


SI. 20 
1.04 

.98 


0.98 
1.02 
1.00 


85 


2 to 3 9 


100 




116 






All farms 


106 


3.0 


145 


1.07 


1.00 


106 







It is easily possible for diversification to be carried to an un- 
profitable extreme.^ Beyond a not well-defined limit, further 
diversification may be at the expense of skill and attention to the 
details of the major sources of income. But it does not appear that 
any of these groups of farmers have gone beyond that limit. 

Prominent among the advantages to be gained from diversification, 
increased crop yields, resulting from more frequent rotation, and 
better employment of labor throughout the year, are usually stressed. 
However, on these farms there appears to be but little relation be- 
tween diversity and crop yields, the more diversified farms showing 
only a slightly higher crop index; but the diversified farms do 
show a distinctly better utilization of the work-stock labor, and it 
has been shown elsewhere that this factor is an important one. 
With the increase in diversity, the average number of days of pro- 
ductive work-stock labor per mule increased from 98 to 115 and 127, 
with resulting decreasing costs per day from $1.20 to $1.04 and 
$0.98. 

It thus appears that the more highly diversified farms have a 
slight advantage in yields of crops, and a considerable advantage 
in providing profitable employment for the work stock, and in re- 
turning larger profits per farm. 

PRODUCTION OF HOME SUPPLIES. 



Closely associated with the subject of diversification is the pro- 
duction on the farm of supplies consumed in the home. For many 
years the farmers of Brooks County have practiced, and prided 
themselves upon, the policy of producing at home a large part of 
the family living. In but few places will a class of farmers be found 
that produce for home use a larger amount of food products per 
family or per person than do" the white farmers in this area. 

1 Department of Agriculture Bulletin 341, p. 82. 



A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 



33 



Table XIV. — licUithm of size of farm and labor of operator to value of food 
consumed in the home (Brooks Count ij, (la.). 





Farms with total crop area of— 


All 
farms. 


All 
white 
opera- 
tors. 


All 
colored 
opera- 
tors. 




Less 
than 

50 
acres. 


50 to 

74 
acres. 


75 to 

149 

acres. 


150 to 

249 
acres. 


250 
acres 

and 
over. 




18 


24 


27 


21 


16 


106 


86 


20 






Number of adults per farm 


3.7 


5.0 


6.0 


5.8 


5.7 


5.3 


5.5 


5.1 






Value of family food: 


J45. 90 
266.90 


$69. 60 
375. 71 


$67. 91 
479. 10 


$81. 09 
543. 60 


$104. 25 
611. 69 


$72. 70 
453. 29 


$77. 65 
506. 59 


856. 30 


Produced on farm 


228. 30 








312. 80 


445.31 


547. 01 


624. 69 


715. 94 


525.99 


584. 24 


284. 60 








84.54 


89.06 


91.17 


107. 70 


125. 60 


99.25 


106. 22 


55.80 






Per cent of family food contributed 


85. 


84. 


88. 


87. 


85. 


86. 


87. 


80.' 






Per cent of food grown on farm con- 
sisting of— 


38.4 
7.6 

19.3 
1.1 


31.6 

9.1 

23.9 

.6 


29.0 

9.9 

26.2 

.2 


26.9 

11.8 

25.7 

.2 


24.5 

11.0 

32.0 

.2 


29.0 

10.2 

26.2 

.4 


27.8 
10.7 
27.4 
^ .4 


39.9 




6.2 




14.6 


Other live-stock products 


.1 


Total live-stock products 


66.4 
2.9 
15.3 
15.4 


65.2 
4.4 
18.2 
12.2 


65.3 
5.4 
17.0 
12.3 


64.6 

7.8 
17.8 
9.8 


67.7 
4.2 

18.5 
9.6 


65.8 
5.2 
17.6 
11.4 


66.3 
5.5 
17.7 
10.5 


60.8 
2.7 


Vegetables 


16.7 




19.8 






Per cent food contributed by farm is 


72 


78 


61 


48 


42 


54 


57 


48 







a Com meal and hominy, sirup, sugar cane, peanuts. 

The total value per farm of that part of the family living fur- 
nished by the farm and the relation that this factor bears to the farm 
returns from other sources have been shown for farms of different 
size in Table VI. Further details of the values ^ of family food, both 
purchased and grown at home, are given in Table XIV. Approxi- 
mately 85 per cent of the family food consumed is furnished. by the 
farm, and this proportion is substantially the same for all sizes of 
farms, though somewhat lower for the colored farmers. The figures 
show that there is a close relation between the size of the farm and 
the amount of food consumed, both per fajnily and per person.^ 
Thus, the average value of food consumed on the group of farms 
under 50 acres is $31:2.80 per family, or $84.54 per person, as com- 
pared with $715.94 and $125.60 on the farms of 250 acres and over. 
It will be seen further that the food supplied by the larger farms 
furnishes a more varied and better quality of diet than that on the 
smaller ones. In other words, the larger farms support a much 
higher standard of living as well as furnish larger net returns in 
other forms. 



^ The food values given are based upon the averaj^e prices on the farms and in the local 
markets, and are conseryative. 

- A person, as the term is used In tliis bulletin, means the equivalent of an adult fed 
in the farm home throughout the year. The number of adults per farm includes hired 
help and others boarded in the operator's home. 



S4 



BULLETIN 648, U. &. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTtTEE. 



Two- thirds of the value of the food grown consists of animal 
products. On the small farms nearly two-thirds of the animal 
products come from swine, but as the farms increase in size dairy and 
poultry products find a more important place. Likewise, vegetables, 
fruits, and nuts are of more importance on the larger farms. Other 
products, consisting principally of corn meal and sirup, occupy a 
relatively more important place in the diet on the smaller farms. 

By reference to figure 13 it is seen that swine products and dairy 
products each constitute more than one-fourth of the total value of 
family food furnished by the farm, while vegetables make up one- 
sixth of the total, miscellaneous products slightly more than one- 
tenth, poultry and eggs nearly a like amount, and fruit and nuts one- 
twentieth. 

The quantities and the values per farm and per person are shown 
in detail in Table XV for each item of food, both purchased and fur- 
nished by the farm. 

Table XV. — Family food purchased and produced on the farm; amounts and 
values per- family and per person {106 farms, Brooks County, Ga.). 





Unit. 


Per family. 


Per person." 


Kinds of food. 


Quantity. 


Value. 


Quantity. 


Value. 


Purchased: 

Flour 


Pounds 

do 


810 
191 


$30.34 
13.37 
7.33 
4.37 
2.60 

14:69 


153 
36 


$5.73 




2.52 


Coffee, tea, cocoa, chocolate, postum 


. ..do 


1.38 


do 


55 


10 


.83 




do 


.49 










2.77 








72.70 




13.72 




Pounds 

do 


770 
185 
471 
69 
111 


145 
35 
89 
13 
21 




Produced on farm: 

Pork 


108. 40 

23.00 

118. 50 

24.50 

21.90 

1.56 

27.40 

15.50 

8.02 

.86 

7.38 

26.10 

8.86 

11.30 

6.80 

6.32 

4.51 

4.12 

3.83 

2.60 

1.80 

.88 

.87 

.83 

1.02 

4.70 

3.75 

2.73 

2.12 

1.77 

1.33 


20.47 


Lard 


4.34 




Gallons 

Number 

Dozens 


22.36 


Poultry 


4.62 


Eggs 


4.13 




.29 




Bushels 

Gallons 

Stalks 


27.4 

38.6 

524 

.86 

40.9 

52.2 

8.9 

15.2 


6.2 
7.3 
99 
.16 

7.7 
9.85 
1.68 
2.87 


5.17 




2.92 




1.51 




Bushels 

Pounds 

Bushels 

do 


.16 




1.39 




4.92 




1.67 




do 


2.13 






1.28 




Number 

Bushels 

Heads 

Bushels 

do 


128 

4.4 

83 

3.8 

2.6 

1.6 

2.0 

.9 

.8 


24.15 
.83 

15.67 
.72 
.49 
.30 
.38 
.17 
.15 


1.19 


Tomatoes 


.86 




.78 




.72 


Okra 


.49 




do 


.34 




do 


.17 




do 


.16 


Beets 


do 


.16 






.19 




Bushels 

do 


3.9 
1.9 
2.3 
2.1 


.74 
.36 
.43 
.40 


.89 




.71 


Figs 


do 


.52 




do 


.40 






.33 








.25 




1 


453.29 




85.52 






1 







Note. — Values of food produced represent sale values on the farm. 

o Adult equivalent. 

6 Milk, cream, and butter expressed as their equivalents in gallons of whole mOk. 

c Honey, $1.52; goats and kids, $0.04. 

<i Includes some corn bread and hominy fed to dogs and chickens. 

e Lima beans, soap beans, and cowpeas. 



A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 



35 



Of the food purchased, flour constitutes much the Largest item, 
equaling 41.7 per cent of the total; sugar comes next with 18.4 per 
cent; the beverages (coffee, tea, cocoa, chocolate, postum) constitute 
10.1 per cent; rice equals 6 per cent; and all other items make up 
the remaining 23.8 per cent. 

Much has been said about the production of home supplies on the 
farm, and farmers are often urged to increase the proportion of the 
family food produced at home by groAving more foods and buying 
less. But in this study it has been found that the ratio of food grown 
to that consumed is of less consequence than is the actual amount 
produced. However, in a tabulation made, but not presented here, 
there was found to be a certain relation between the percentage of 
family food produced at home and the farm returns as measured by 





if z 
oo < 


ml 










ITEMS 


5i2 


"oflii 


^100 


200 300 400 


•■^oo 


TOTAL FOOD 
SWINE PRODUCTS 


*453 
131 


100.0 
290 


1 








w//^mm 


DAIRY PRODUCTS 


1 1 8 


26.2 


^^^ 








VEGETABLES 


80 


n.6 


IHB 








(1) 














MISCELLANEOUS PROO'CTS 


52 


1 1.4 


^^ 








POULTRY & EGGS 


46 


10.2 


■i 








FRUIT AND NUTS 


24 


5.Z 


■ 








OTHER UVE STOCK PROD'CTS 


2 


.4 


1 


■ ..0..0.,. 


^,O0 


„......, 



iG. 13.— Value per farm of food products consumed in the home. 

the farmer's earnings. Thus, the farmers growing less than 80 
per cent of the food consumed had earnings 11 per cent lower than 
the average for farms of a similar size, while the similar return was 
7 per cent above the average for those who produced more than 90 
per cent of their own food. However, only 19 of the 106 farms fell 
in the former group, and only 28 in the latter, showing that the range 
of percentages was not so wide as would ordinarily be expected. 

When the farms were grouped on the basis of the value of food 
grown at home the farmer's earnings and per cent return on the in- 
vestment indicated considerably greater returns from the farms 
which furnished the more food. Thus, farms furnishing food to the 
value of less than $250 each gave gro.ss labor incomes 19 per cent 
below the average, while returns were 44 per cent above the average 
on the farms supplying more than $600 worth of products. 

AYhen the farms were grouped on the amount of food furnished per 
person, tabulations showed much the higher returns from fanns 



36 BULLETIN 648^ U. S. DEPARTMElsrT OF AGRICULTUEE. 

supplying food to the value of from $75 to $100 per person than 
those furnishing either more or less than that range. 

It Avould api^ear that the farmers who have produced the largest 
supply of family food at home have not thereby, on these farms, 
reduced the amount of food purchased. Rather, those who produced 
the most also purchased the most, since it is seen that the percentage 
of the total food bought is fairly constant. Those who produced the 
most food lived much better than those who produced less. The ques- 
tion of producing supplies at home seems, therefore, on these farms 
at least, to be not one of reducing the expense for purchased products, 
but it is rather one of a better standard of living. 

' CROPPING SYSTEMS. 

In any region where economic conditions have been fairly uniform 
and operating over a considerable term of years, the type or types 
of agriculture tend to a stability of form that changes only in re- 
sponse to changes in the economic forces. Wide departures from 
practices that fit the economic factors at work are likely to lead 
to financial disaster to those persisting in them. The result is the 
automatic elimination of those continuing such wrong practices, and 
the eventual disappearance of the latter from the farming of the 
region. It will usually be found in an old estal)lished region that 
the average practices more or less closely approximate the best 
practice. 

The proper selection of farm enterprises is a large factor in deter- 
mining the success of the business. Of equal importance is the com- 
bining of these enterprises in the proportions that best fit the local 
conditions. Such a combination will be one that most efficiently 
employs the farm crew and equipment. Ordinarily, it will be one 
that distributes the labor, both man and work-stock, rather evenly 
throughout the year. But it is not to be assumed that under any 
set of conditions there is only one type of farming that may be 
safely followed, or that within the type there is not a certain range 
of choice in the selection of enterprises to be adopted and in the 
proportions in which these enterprises should be fitted together. In 
an area like Brooks County especially, with a growing season extend- 
ing nearly throughout the year, and with a long list of crops adapted 
to the soil and climate, the choice is a rather wide one, largely de- 
pendent upon the abilities and inclinations of the individual farmer. 

Much may be learned from a study of the average practices, and 
more especially of the practices which long experience has shown to 
be the ones best adapted to the region. This does not imply that 
the average practices are necessarilv the best that could be devised. 
On the contrary, it will usually be found that they may be improved 
upon in important respects. Nevertheless, a study of the returns 



A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 



37 



secured when enterprises are combined in different proportions will 
hfelp to show the proportions that are best adapted to the local con- 
ditions. Such a study has been made for the Important crops found 
on the farms surveyed, and the results are presented in Table XVI. 
The index of earnings and the per cent returns on investment are 
the measures of efficiency used. 



Table XVI. — Relation of per cent of the crop area in specified crops to gross 
labor income and returns on investment (Brooks County, (la.). 



Crop. 



Cotton . 



Corn. 



Oats and rj"e. 



Cowpeas (for hay). 



Watermelons . 



I'cr cent of crop land in 
specified crop. 





Oto 10 

10 to 20 

20 to 30 

30 to 40 

40 and over, 

Under 30... 

30 to 40 

40 to 50 

50 and over. 

ITnder 5 

5 to 10 

10 to 20 

20 to 30 

30 and over, 

ITnder 5 

5 to 10 

10 to 15 

15 and over 

Under 5 

5 to 10 

10 to 20 

20 and over 





Average 






Number 


per cent 
crop land 
in speci- 


Farmers' 


Index of 


of farms. 


earnings. 


eammgs. 




fied crop. 






2 





$372 


S70 


10 


7 


553 


90 


24 


15 


753 


89 


25 


25 


1,112 


128 


23 


33 


801 


97 


22 


49 


724 


86 


19 


26 


852 


93 


37 


36 


1,077 


113 


21 


44 


756 


92 


2o 


57 


.474 


92 


'?2 


2 


635 


92 


16 


8 


664 


97 


27 


15 


872 


112 


23 


24 


1,032 


112 


18 


38 


815 


77 


39 


1 


638 


90 


17 


8 


907 


104 


33 


12 


904 


103 


17 


22 


963 


111 


64 


.5 


749 


97 


21 


7.0 


999 


103 


14 


14.0 


854 


111 


/ 


29.0 


797 


91 



Per cent 
return on 
invest- 
ment. 



2.0 
3.2 
5.7 
7.7 
7.2 
5.6 

6.4 
7.5 
5.9 
4.8 

7.9 
6.5 
6.9 
6.8 
5.0 

5.3 
5.5 

6.8 
7.8 

5.7 
6.8 
7.4 
6.3 



Reference to Table XVI will show that the farms with from 20 to 
30 per cent, or an average of 25 per cent, of the crop land planted 
to cotton, gave higher returns than did those with either a larger or 
smaller proportion than this. Thus, the farms with no cotton planted 
returned farmers' earnings amounting to $372. As the percentage 
of the crop land in cotton increased, up to 25 per cent, the farmers' 
earnings increased to $1,112. But a further increase in the propor- 
tion of land in cotton resulted in lower earnings, amounting to $724 
for the group of farms with the largest proportion, or over 40 per 
cent of the land in cotton. 

Expressed in another way, the farms with no cotton returned 
farmers' earnings amounting to but 70 per cent of the average of 
farms of a similar size. With increasing proportions of cotton 
planted, up to 25 per cent of the crop area, the returns increased to 
28 per cent above the average, but decreased to 86 per cent with a 
still further increase in the proportion of cotton. 



38 BULLETIN 648, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 

Measured in still another wa}^, the " no-cotton " farms returned 2 
per cent on the investment, while increasing the proportions of cot- 
ton gave increasing returns up to T.7 per cent for the farms with one- 
fourth of the land in cotton. Further increase in the cotton area 
reduced the return to 5.G per cent on the investment; 

These results would indicate that where conditions are similar to 
those found on these farms at the time this survey was made, but 
with cotton figured at the normal 5-year price, the proper proportion 
of the crop land to be devoted to cotton to give the greatest farm 
profits is approximately one-fourth. Other fai'm-management sur- 
veys in the South have shown that in the areas represented more than 
one-fourth of the crop land should be planted to cotton to produce 
the largest profits. But such surveys have been made on types of soil 
heavier and better adapted to cotton than those in Brooks County. 
On such heavy soils, the maintenance of fertility by the growing of 
legumes, cover crops, etc., is not of such prime importance as it is on 
these lighter soils. 

Corn is grown in Brooks County primarily as a feed for the live 
stock on the farm. " However, a surplus is sold, the returns amount- 
ing to 5.6 per cent of the farm receipts. In a tabulation not shown, 
it was found that the farms getting from 1 to 5 per cent of the total 
receipts from the sale of corn were more profitable than those getting 
either a smaller or larger proportion from that source. This would 
indicate that sufficient corn should be planted to provide for all the 
farm needs. To insure this, a small margin of safety should be 
allowed, which will ordinarily mean a small surplus for sale. The 
proportion of land to be planted to corn, therefore, will be largely 
determined by the yield secured and the amount of live stock kept. 
The corn yields reported are rather low, but it should be remembered 
that the greater part of the corn grown is planted in alternate rows 
with peanuts. In considering, therefore, what area can profitably 
be devoted to this crop, due credit must be given to the pork produced 
by the accompanying peanut crop, as well as to the improvement in 
the soil fertility resulting from pasturing off the peanuts. The last- 
mentioned consideration is a very important one on these light soils. 

In Table XVI tabulations similar to the one for cotton just dis- 
cussed are also shown for the other important crops. The gi'oup of 
farms with from 30 to 40 per cent, or an average of 37 per cent, of 
the crop area in corn, gave considerably^ better returns, measured by 
both the farmers' earnings and return on the investment, than did 
those with either a greater or smaller proportion in that crop. This 
would indicate that approximately one-third of the crop area of 
these farms should be planted to corn. The cost-of-production data, 
to be discussed later, suggest that most of this corn should be grown 
with peanuts as an interplanted crop. . 



A FABM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BEOOKS CO., GA. 39 

Pats are grown on these farais largely as a source of feed for 
li.ye stock, especially work stock, as a winter cover crop, and to pro- 
vide winter and spring pasture for hogs and cattle. It is also a 
source of cash sales, amounting on the average to 4.6 per cent of all 
farm receipts. On 25 of the farms the sales of this grain amounted 
to more than 5 per cent of the receipts. The cost records show that 
as a grain crop, oats, at the average yields obtained, returned but a 
narrow margin of profit, and the census data in the first part of this 
bulletin show that both the relative and actual acreage of the crop 
has been steadily decreasing in the county since 1880. Apparently 
it is not as a cash crop that oats should fill an important place on 
these farms, but rather as a source of farm feed and as a pasture 
and cover crop. 

Eef erring again to Table XVI it is seen that the farms with from 
10 to 30 per cent of the crop land in oats and rye together returned 
larger profits than did those with either a greater or a less propor- 
tion devoted to these crops. 

Cowpeas are grown for hay on practically all these farms, and on 
one-third of them it is a source of cash sales. It is, in fact, the crop 
that furnishes the greater part of the hay grown. Approximately 
one-half of the acreage of oats and rye is followed by this crop, a 
proportion that is lower than that ordinarily found further north 
in the State. The lower proportion here is due to the heavy summer 
rains which often make the curing of this crop a difficult matter. 
The tabulation in Table XVI, however, indicates that the crop 
might with profit be grown more extensively than it is. The group 
of farms with the least of this crop planted returned the lowest 
profits, while the farms with the largest proportion of the crop land 
so planted got the highest returns. 

The farms with from 10 to 20 per cent of the crop land planted to 
watermelons returned greater profits than did those with either more 
or less. However, this crop is a rather speculative one and too 
much dependence should not be placed upon such a tabulation. 

Summarizing the results of the tabulations in Table XVI, it would 
seem that a cropping system adapted to the conditions on these 
farms at the time this survey was taken should divide the crop land 
approximately as follows: One-fourth to be planted to cotton, one- 
third to corn, 20 to 30 per cent in oats and rye to be followed by 
cowpea hay or a similar crop, and the balance to be planted to 
miscellaneous crops, the latter depending upon the individual tastes 
and inclinations of the farmer. The amount of oats, rye, and cow- 
peas to be grown should be governed by the amount of live stock 
kept. If many hogs are raised, most of the corn should be planted 
in alternate rows with peanuts, the latter to be hogged off.^ 

^ For a further discussion of tlie crops grown on tliese farms, see pp. 53—57. 



40 



BULLETIN ■( 



U. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGRICULTUEE. 



The above percentages of the crop area in the different crops arc 
very close to the average for all of the farms studied, though there 
is a wide range in the proportions found on the different farms. 
Likewise, when the 25 farms showing the best returns are selected, 
it is found that the crop areas are divided in proportions very 
closely approaching those found to be the most profitable in the 
above tabulation. 

Elsewhere it has been pointed out that since this survey was made 
the cotton-boll weevil has invaded the county, and it can not be 
doubted that the proper organization of the farms has been to a 
large extent changed thereby. Whether or not the proportion of 
land in cotton found by this study to be most profitable will continue 
to be so under boll-weevil conditions can not be answered by the 
data at hand. It is certain, however, that the cost and hazard of 
growing the crop have been greatly increased, especially in this 
immediate section, where the mild winters and heavy summer rain- 
fall favor the work of the weevil considerably more than do condi- 
tions even a short distance farther north in the State. In other 
infested areas with similar soil and climatic conditions, but where 
cotton has been more exclusively relied upon as the source of the 
farm income, a reduction in the proportion of land in cotton will 
likely be necessary. To the farmers in such areas, this study of the 
diversified farms of Brooks County should be of considerable value. 

Table XVII. — Relation of sirhir raisimj to f(ii:in profitfi {BrooJcs County. Ga.). 



Number of hogs per 100 acres crop land. 


Number 
of farms. 


Average 
number 
of hogs 
per 100 
acres 
crop land. 


Index of 
earnings. 


Per cent 
return on 
invest- 
ment. 




19 
42 
26 
19 


18.8 
32.4 
50.3 
74.1 


92 
94 
97 
124 


5.1 


20 to 40 


5.1 


40 to 60 


7.0 




8.6 








106 


41.8 


100 


6.2 







The presence of the boll weevil in the region of this survey must 
mean for many of the farmers a reduction in the proportion of 
the land planted to cotton. The question of what to substitute for 
the cotton displaced is a serious problem, a partial answer to which 
is found in Table XVII. The farms have here been grouped on 
the basis of the number of hogs kept per 100 acres of crop land. 
The group of farms with less than 20 hogs per 100 acres returned 
earnings equal to but 92 per cent of those from farms of a similar 
size, but as the number of hogs increased the returns increased. The 
farms with more than 60 hogs per 100 acres, or an average of 74.1, 
gave earnings 24 per cent higher than the average. Likewise, the 



A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 41 

returns on the investment increased from 5.1 per cent for the farms 
with the lowest relative number of hogs to 8.6 per cent for the farms 
with the most hogs. 

In another table, not shown, there was found to be a close and 
direct relation between the percentage of farm receipts obtained 
from hogs and the profits from the year's business. It should be 
borne in mind that these results were obtained before the advent of 
the boll weevil, and that the farms heavily stocked with hogs were 
not the ones that grew the largest proportion of cotton. In the 
presence of the weevil, hog raising should offer still greater relative 
advantages in the form of profits. 




Fig. 14. — Brooks County has Innjr bwn noted for its production of liogs, an enterprise 
that, since the invasion of the boll weevil, is partly, and profitably, replacing cotton. 

These results would seem to indicate clearly that in the production 
of swine one of the most profitable substitutes for cotton is to be 
found. Since this survey was made, the production of hogs in this 
part of the State has been increasing at a remarkable rate. The 
problem of the proper organization of farms for the production of 
hogs in this area is the subject of a separate study. (See fig. 11.) 

COST OF PRODUCTION. 

Results obtained by cost accounting on the farm should not be 
given a too literal interpretation. It will frequently be found that 
cost-accounting methods indicate that certain farm enterprises are 
being conducted at a loss, but it does not necessarily follow that such 
enterprises should be abandoned. On the other hand, such enter- 
prises may add materially to the profits from the year's business. 
It may be found, for example, ou a farm devoted principally to 



42 BULLETIN 648, V. S. DEPABT'MENT OF AGRICULTUEE. 

the growing of cotton that the production of com and oats cost 
more than the market prices of these crops. But a large part of 
the equipment and man and mule labor that must be maintained for 
the growing of cotton is used also in producing the other crops, 
and much of this use is at a time when the equipment and labor 
are not needed for the primary crop. The additional expense 
incurred when corn or oats, in this instance, are added to the crop- 
ping system may be very much less than the amount of the costs 
charged to these crops by the usual cost-accounting methods. It 
may also be found that the secondary crops grown do not materially, 
if at all, reduce the amount of cotton that can be grown with a 
given crew and equipment. The cost of producing any of the usual 
farm crops, therefore, should be considered with a proper view to 
the farm or cropping system as a whole, rather than from the stand- 
point of an independent crop. 

To determine the costs of producing farm products by means of 
daily cost-accounting records is slow and expensive. The present 
study is an attempt to secure by the much quicker survey method, 
applying well-established cost-accounting principles, the costs and 
other factors that are ordinarily obtained only by accounting. It is 
believed that the much larger number of records that may be secured 
by this method sufficiently neutralize any sacrifice in minute accuracy 
of details in individual records. The larger number of records that 
may be obtained greatly increases the number of problems that may 
be studied. 

The essential feature of the method here used is that the overhead 
costs of the farm business are distributed among all of the productive 
enterprises^ in proportion to the amount of labor expended on each. 
The total costs for the. farrn of man labor, work-stock labor, annual 
cost of equipment, and interest on the cash required to operate the 
business are determined separately. All other items of cost are 
charged directly to the enterprises to which they apply. 

The total number of days of productive man labor expended on the 
farm for the year is determined. This total is divided into the 
total cost of man labor to ascertain the cost of each day of productive 
labor. To determine for any crop the acre cost of man labor, this 
cost per day is multiplied by the number of days of man labor ex- 
pended on an acre of that crop. The per acre share of the interest 

1 The term productive enterprise is used in this investigation to designate all crops, 
Jive stock, or other source of income that add directly or indirectly to the gross farm 
income. Productive labor of man or work stock includes all labor applied directly to a 
productive enterprise. It does not include such labor as repairing buildings, fences, ter- 
races, and ditches, or the care of work stock. The amount of productive labor devoted 
to each enterprise was determined by individual estimates from each farmer, the esti- 
mates being made in detail by separate operations, and later reduced to terms of man 
days and mule days per acre of crop, or unit of other product. 



A FAEM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. ' 43 

on cash to operate the farm is determined in the same way. Likewise, 
the cost of work stock and of implements and machinery aro dis- 
tributed in a simihir manner, but on the basis of the amount of mule 
labor expended on each enterprise. By this system the productive 
enterprises of the farm carry the entire overhead charge of the 
l)usiness. The costs of all crops grown by the wage system have been 
kept separate from the costs of those grown by the cropper system. 
For the latter the costs of the labor are considered from the point of 
view of the two parties to the system and not from that of the farm 
operator alone. 

LAND RENT. 

The land-rent charge against the crops was based upon the farmer's 
estimate of the amount that the crop land would return in the form 
of cash rent or its equivalent. When only a single crop occupied the 
land during the year, that crop bore the entire annual rent charge, 
and when more than one crop was grown the charge was in most 
cases divided evenly between them. However, in the case of corn 
and peanuts planted together, G3 per cent of the rent was charged to 
the com and 37 per cent to the peanuts, for reasons explained later. 

FERTILIZERS.! 

The fertilizer charge includes all commercial fertilizers, cotton- 
seed, cottonseed meal, and stable manure applied. Stable manure 
is charged at the estimated value in the lot, which usually amounts 
to $1 per load, and all other materials at the price paid or the market 
value. The costs of hauling from the shipping point and to the 
field are included under the labor charges. 

MAN LAB0R.2 

Included in the man-labor charge are the cash wages paid and 
the value of rations furnished to all hired labor ; the estimated value 
of the farmer's labor, the cropper's labor, and all family labor; as 
well as the perquisites furnished to each of these in the form of 
wood (uncut) and the renting value of the garden and house lot. It 
was assumed that the rent charge for the crop land covered the use 
of the buildings thereon. The relative and actual costs of the 
different elements of man labor are shown in figure 15, the figures 
given in every case including the perquisites. The cost of 
the operator's labor includes all supervision as Avell as the 
manual labor performed. All of the operator's labor charge against 
the cropper system consists of recompense for supervision. The cost 
given for cropper labor represents the amount that the croppers 
would receive in the form of wages for performing the same amount 
of labor. This differs from the item of cropper labor as given under 
current expenses. (See p. 16.) 

1 For a detailed discussion of fertilizers applied see pp. 30-32. 
* For a discussion of the labor sj-stems see pp. 16-19. 



44 



BULLETIN 648, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTITEE. 



The operator's labor was the largest item in the total labor cost, 
equaling 38 per cent of the latter, followed in order by the cash- 
paid labor, the unpaid family labor, and the cropper labor. On the 
average, there were 926 days of productive labor expended per 
farm, of which 570 days were devoted to the wages crops and 356 



LABOR 




entire: farm 


a s: 

h ^ 
01 < 

"■ 


WAGE SYSTEM 


(E 

in < 

o '^ 
o 


CROPPER SYSTEM 


»100 zoo 500 *400 


♦lOO 200 »300 


*)oo 200 ♦aoo 


OPERATOR 
CASH -PAID 
FAMILY 
CROPPER 


*412 
328 

ni 




*32 6 
31Z 
100 


- 


*86 
16 
71 


1 


^^ 


TOTAL 


1083 




738 




345 





Fig. 15. — Cost of man labor per farm, for the farm as a whole, and for the wage and 
cropper systems sepai-ately. 

days to the cropper crops. The average cost per day of the pro- 
ductive labor was $1.20/ 

The man-labor charge was by far the largest item in the cost of 
producing crops, amounting to 40.4 per cent of the latter. 

WORK-STOCK LABOR. 

The second largest item in the cost of crop production is work- 
stock labor, which accounted for 19.2 per cent of the total cost. In 
calculating the cost of work-stock labor the items considered were 
feed, depreciation, interest on present value, shoeing, veterinary 
charges, and losses from injuries. It was assumed that the value of 
the manure produced was offset by the cost of water, taxes on the 
work stock, and interest, taxes, and insurance upon the feed. The 
labor of caring for work stock was considered as nonproductive; 
hence, by this system of cost determination, the cost of such labor is 
automatically distributed among all the productive enterprises on the 
farm. The stable charge is assumed to be covered by the rent of the 
crop land. 

These farms maintained an average of 4.4 head of productive work 
stock, three- fourths of which consisted of mules. The average values 
at the beginning of the year were $152 per mule and $145 per horse, 
or an average of $150 per head of work stock. The average cost of 
keeping a horse or mule for the year amounted to $115.46, the items 
of which are shown in figure 16. Three-fourths of this cost consisted 
of feeds, and 59 per cent of the feed cost consisted of corn. Hay 
made up about 20 per cent of the feed cost, corn fodder 8 per cent, 
oats nearly 12 per cent, and all other feed 1.5 per cent. The latter 
consisted of green feed, mostly sorghum and pasture. Most of the 
oats were fed in the sheaf. 

1 Unweighted average. 



A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 



45 



" ITEMS 


si 




COST PER ANIMAL 
*10 20 30 40 50 60 to 60 


FEED COST 

DEPRECIATION 

INTEREST 

VETERINARY, SHOEING. 
ETC. 


•86 00 
16 85 


1+.5 
13.1 
10.3 


• soi> i.o.o* ' •«•< •...•> •.„ 


swtwatswtKwas^stRisasagsai^gsi^swa^ 


I 


TOTAL 


115.46 


100.00 



Fig. 16. — Annual cost of work stock per animal. 

The depreciation on work stock accounted for 13.7 per cent of the 
annual cost, or 10.6 per cent of the average value per head. This 
means that the average remaining working life was 9.5 years. 

With the average work animal on these farms, 31 acres of crop 
land were cultivated and 113 days of productive labor were per- 
formed, the latter at a cost of $1.07 ^ per day of such labor. 

EQUIPMENT COST. 

The present value of the implements and machinery on these farms 
amounted to $330 per farm, or $2.28 per acre of crop land. The 
annual charge against this equipment is the sum of the depreciation, 
repairs, interest, taxes, and insurance, minus the receipts from imple- 
ments hired out. This charge, the items of which are shown in 
figure 17, amounted to $103.47 ^ per farm, or $0.71 per acre of crop 
land. This sum equals 31.4 per cent of the present value of the 
equipment and 4 per cent of the total cost of crop production. As 
explained elsewhere, the equipment charge was distributed among the 
productive enterprises on the farm in proportion to the amounts of 
mule labor expended on each. The charge amounted to 21 cents for 
each day of productive mule labor. 



ITEMS 


feP 
O > J 






COST OR VALUE 


PER FARM 








♦ 50 


too ISO 


200 zso 


300 


PRESENT VALUE OF 
IMPLEMENTS & MACHINERY 


$ 

33000 






TOTAL ANNUAL COST 


104.54 


31. 7 










B^mi 


^^^^H 


^^H 




DEPRE.CIATION 


55.44 


16.9 


INTEREST, TAAES, INS. 


32,54 


9.8 


■■ 








REPAIRS 


16.14 


4.6 


■ 








MACM1NE.RY HIRE.0 


1.42 


.4 


1 









Fig. 17. — Present value and annual cost per farm of Implements and machinery. 

The item of depreciation includes more than half of the annual 
equipment cost, or 16.9 per cent of the present vahie of the imple- 

1 This cost is the average per day per farm, whereas the costs Riven in figure IG are 
averages per animal. * 

= The total annual cost, .$104.54, shown in figure 17, represents the gross cost. Sub- 
tracting the receipts from machinery hired out, $1.07, leaves $103.47 as the net cost 
per farm. 



46 



BULLETIN 648, V. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



ments and machinery. This means that in its present condition the 
equipment will have an average iife of approximately six years. In- 
terest, taxes, and insurance amount to about 10 per cent of the value 
of the equipment, and repairs slightly less than half of that amount.- 

PRODUCTIVn WORK UNITS.i 

For the purpose of distributing the labor costs among the different 
crops and other enterprises by the method here used, it was necessary 
to ascertain the amount of man and work-stock labor expended on 
each. This was determined for and applied to each enterprise on each 
farm separately. The average number of days of productive labor 
required per acre of each of the principal crops is given in Table 
XVIII. Since there is a close relation between crop yields and 
amount of labor required, the average yields are also shown. 

Table XVIII. — Productive days of man and nmJe labor expended per acre and 
average yields of the principal crops {Brooks County, Ga.). 



Crop. 





Average days pro- 




ductive labor per 


Number 


acre. 


of 




records. 








Man 


Mule 




labor. 


labor. 


143 


13.91 


5.03 


6 


16.39 


5.20 


61 


3.32 


3.12 


120 


2.50 


2.00 


15 


23.10 


2.92 


5 


19.43 


1.10 


53 


3.33 


2.67 


118 


1.90 


1.21 


80 


1.34 


1.88 


15 


1.50 


1.70 


12 


1.18 


1.89 


23 


.55 


1.12 


65 


1.92 


2.05 


4 


6.72 


6.80 


46 


5.36 


5.00 


25 


10.33 


4.99 


19 


5.82 


2.85 


4 


5.88 


3.82 


24 


26.24 


14.40 



Average yield per acre. 



Cotton, Upland a 

Cotton, Sea Island a 

Corn (solid) 

Corn (planted with peanuts) a. 



Peanuts harvested (solid) 

Peanuts harvested (in corn) 

Peanuts "hogged-off " (solid) a ... 
Peanuts "hogged-ofl" (in corn) « . 

Oats 

Oat hay .- 

Rye 

Rye or oats, pastured 

Cowpea hay 

Sorghum silage 

Watermelons 

Sweet potatoes (harvested) 

Sweet potatoes (hogged-off) 

Irish potatoes 

Sugar cane 



299 pounds lint. 
214 pounds hnt. 

14.3 bushels. 

71 pounds fodder. 

12.4 bushels. 

84 pounds fodder. 
37 bushels. 
29 bushels. 

(b) 

16.2 bushels. 
831 pounds. 
7.9 bushels. 

1,092 pounds. 
14 tons. 
0.5 carload. 
108 bushels. 

69 bushels. 

307 gallons sirup. 



a Includes both wage and cropper crops, b o.71 bushel of seed picked, c 0.33 bushel of seed picked. 

The relationships of the various elements of cost, yields, and 
other factors to the different phases of farm organization and effi- 
ciency have already been considered elsewhere. In the following 
pages, therefore, are presented only details of costs that have not 
been previously discussed. 



^ A work unit is an average day's work, 



A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN" BROOKS CO., GA. 



47 



Mo 






'N O -f O >— ' CD O 
CS fCl ^ r-l (^1 ^ t^ 



kOOlC^OOOi-^Cl'-'-*' 

CO o -^ c4 ' o t^ o 71^ 



o:iCsciO'-'L-::t^'^<NC^i 



00 05 to 00 CO C-1 

O «ccc cc o -^ 



C3rH,-i .-H 



t*i-HOOOCO-^COI>* 

•-•t^aicooQOcco 



CS f (N 






»0 r-H 






Oi-tr-H-t** cot- O 
Oi <N C^ "^ O O -1* 

*-! coc4 ' ' 'i-J 



a wo 



0.-IO 



es- 



O O -t' CO t^ r-1 00 
00 ^ .-H O O i-H 00 



o ft 
Op 



OfNCOiOOOCOi-HO 



CO CO ■tf C>) CO 

■ ■ ,s ^^ ^ 






t-C O CO t-^ »0 CO CO tM 
O t- O O CO T l-^ CO 



CO t— ».0 1-H 



3-5 



'U *r Q 
Oi,^ CO 






i? ^ 



^ ^^ S ^ M r^ 02 t^ 02 









ft— 
.9: 



.g 



48 



BULLETIN 648, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



O 



cq 



O 



g c3 



C^ Tt* « CD O -^ -^ 
O (N t>- CCKM CO O 



00 CD lO lO ^H CO 00 

00 030 cso -*o 



OOOit^ CDiOOOt* 
CdCOMIMOCOO 



CD t^ ^ -^ 00 Oi »0 



•rt* lO t^ u:: C^ C-l 00 Cq 



CD 1-H O •-< O cpO ^ 



-^OOt^OiCDC^-^00 



CD CO O ■* CD C>1 00 
CO O OC^ Ol Ol ^ 



CO O IM CO (N CO O 
*-l *0 CO Oi CO CS OO 



3t- C^ "-H 



OcDC0CDO(M00C^ 



kOCO-^ i-H OOO C»i 



C3 



^pS 



a 



« d o 



■^05 



(MCO 

O CO 



cS-O 
O t- 



C3 CS 






^ e: 



>e s 






PQooa 
S e « P. 



w 0) to 

P- OT s 2 




A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 



49 



All calculations of cost of crop production have been based upon 
an acre as the unit. In Table XIX the itemized acre costs, yields, 
values and profits, and the cost per unit of each product are shown in 
detail for all the important crops grown by the wage system; and 
the same data for the crops grown by the cropper system are given in 
Table XX, the costs to the cropper and to the farm operator being 
shown here separately. The cropper's share of the costs consists 
mainly of labor, that of himself and his family, and a small amount 
hired, followed in order by his share of the costs of fertilizer, gin- 




cipally as a crop to be " hogged off ". Only sufficient seed was harvested for planting 
purposes and a few cash sales. Nearly all of this was " picked " by the slow hand 
method here shown. 



ning, bagging and ties, interest on cash, and planting seed. The 
operator's costs Consist principally of mule labor, his own labor of 
supervision, land rent, and fertilizers, while of lesser and decreasihg 
importance are the equipment cost, ginning, bagging and ties, seed, 
and interest on cash. The cost of the operator's supervision amounts 
to a little less than half as much as that of the manual labor, all of 
the latter being furnished by the cropper.^ 

1 The terms of the cropper's contract, the relative yields and costs to each party, and 
the relative yields and costs by the two systems are discussed in the first part of this 
bulletin. 



50 



BULLETIN 648^ U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 









Oco ooor 


. Ol^ 


03CO 


CO 
















e 




o 


CC O— IC^ 


•CMO 


ceo 


CO 


















•-H * tH 




CO o' 


CO 
















o ^ 


to 


2 


e© 






















"■a 


73 


























C £ 


U 


ft 


























8 


o 
















































^1 
a ^ 


f-< 


^ 




-* . 


ior~(N 


X -V 


-r 






















■o ■ 


ocoo 


o cs 


















(N 


ft 
ft 
2 
o 


























^ 


■* 




e© • 






















w 




tH 


O TJ-OM ■t' • 


CO ■ 


CO 
















c3 




o 


■o -H [- Tj< . r- . 




o 
















.a 




"5 


c-i -HC^ 




t^" ■' 


,,■ 
















■o 


m 


fe 


«© 






















^ ^ 


Tl 


ft 
























or) 


g 


O 
























fe 




00 ' 


Icon '• 


to '■ 


o 
















*i^ 






CO ; 


• OrH . 


lO . 


lO 
















g 


^ 


ft 








in' •' 


IN 
















§ 




a 


























Ph 




o 






























;h 


c-iiniriC- 


J "oo 


to • 


o 


M* C) C/j CO 




t" coo 








O 


O^ t^ 00^ 


■■ .rt 00 


oj I 


00 




-H . I- Oi 




"'TO 




§ 




C3 






lO ■ 


lO 


V -H E lO O 






ft 






S "^ 










o-s s« 




■3 " IN 




J3^ 

is "3 


1 


o 












i o 


CO 


o ^ 




M 




CO I 


. CO^ to 


CO 


00 


•^ to CS 00 


is OOO 




00 . 


|OOt- 


CO 


CO 


t- o ^ f- " 




,2 -o 




a 




ft 








ri 


(N 


^' IN E lO O 




■rs '^ o 




o 




ft 




«© • 










©•a «» 




o " J2 




O 




2 
o 














o 




P^ ^ 








t^ 


QO as^o-^ocs 


05 


<35 




< 00 TJ-O 




^•OO 








o 

03 


^ Oi lO >oO'-t ^ 
CO 'c^ ■ ■ ■ ' 


00 


o 

00 


»0 IN E to ^ 




■a 




.•3" 

"o 

a 

o 




1-1 


^ 








□ •o «^ 




r) IN 




■a 


<I> 

a 
o 










J " 


_. oc 


5 ^ 

.-00 




ft 




<N '. 


■ 00COO5 


'• CO 


<N 




■1 Oi -^ GO 




ci ' 


■OOCO 


. lO 

CO 


o 

CO 


IC»-H S CO O 


^ 








s< 




«© ■ 










o-o «« 




■^ K 








2 
o 














o 




«^ 




^ 




^ 


I^ OiOi 


D • lO o t- 


ira 


lO 


INCO « 




CKIO 


'^ 




o 


O CD CM 


.. <N to C 






CO t~ . _ CO 




• COIN 


. q 




-M 












. . -vo^ 




Tje^ ■ 


_2 




pj 


CO CO eo 


'■ ' c-ii- 






oirt a --1 . 




§ u to 






«^ 




(N 


IN 




■1 .M -H O 




a IN 






3 












1 J " (« 




M ®^0 


M 


T3 


ft 












J3 "^ 


CO 


2 

M 


y 


O 














2 





. 




t^ • 


• C3 lO Oc£ 

• CO (N CO C 


5 t~ 


r^ 


IN »0 CO 


IN oc 


^ 




t-i 


fe 




00 • 


? ^ 




COtj. ^OCS 


€@ 


. CO t' ^'^ 


a 
o 


CO 


ft 






'• ■ ■ OJ r- 


^ CO 


CO 


oico a -^ ■ 




© ti CJ 




ft 












rH .-. CJ O 






o 




o 




«^ ■ 










^J] c© 




t» ss 


o 




O 




















^ 




t^ 


^ lO « 00 — r-1 00 C 


3 0> 


o> 


1^ 00 CO t^ 




OC<l 


a> 




o 


lM02■oo>ocooo^ 


- lO 


lO 


o -^ . CO OS 




. 00 t^ 


ft 




+J 


CO CO -^ ' ' ' 1-H 




ira 


, 


i^ .g"d 




■S^to 


d 




^ 












4^ 


•S 


ft 










^ 9S 


O: 


w ^^ 


% 


o 
o 


O 














OS 

10 


















Xi 


£ 


^ 




lO • 


• ^H lOCOCI 


5 CO 


CO 


Ol^ coo 


£ 


loqr r:! 






o> • 


■CO-HI^CI 


5 00 


00 


Ot. Oi . CO C/ 


9& .it30<~ 1 


fl' 


n 


S" 




oi • 




C-j 


cs 


■W -H O 

COCO d ^ _ 




»"I3 


o 




ft 




% • 










-1 .1-1 o 






•M 




2 














^ «e 




W s* 


o 

o 




o 










































t-l 






^-t • 


























o 






• 


























■^ 






-t^ • 


























C3 






tS ■ 


























(H 






Ut • 


























































ft 






a • 


























o 






: 


^ 
























■o 






-a ■ 


c 
























a 






a ; 


-S 
























C3 






c3 ; 


























^ 






« ' 


M 
























ft 


£ 




ft • 


-^ 
























ft 




ft : 


O) 
























o 




p , 


ft 
























o 


> 




. 


& 
























>> 






>> • 


h 
























X3 


t- 




X3 ; 



























"S 


a 


!< 


^ : 


>> 

^ 












; ■ : ; '.' 


3 










> 


c 
c 


i, 


> ; 


n 














a <D 














'S a 














t3 »-. 








o 


c 




« O+J 














o 


p 






5 


















s-^ ■ ■ 


to =3 


: ^ 




ii I 


s 

2 


X 




i-i t, O) 












si i i' 


c3 "t^ 


: "^ 




, C3 


_<D 


i 














° 8. 

to _ ■■ 


3 1 




si III 


£ 


::3 « 










3 ;? 






> 

< 


ftgg^ 








o 
o 














^n2 if 






i 




1 



A FARM MANAGEMENT SUEVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 51 

COTTON. 

Slightly more than half of the cost of producing cotton consists 
of man labor, followed in order by mule labor, fertilizer, and land 
rent. 

The cost of growing cotton was divided between the lint and seed 
in proportion to the relative values of each. Substituting the aver- 
age 5-year price of lint for the price received in 1914, for reasons 
previously explained, the value of the short staple lint was found 
to be 85 per cent of the total value of the lint and seed taken together. 
Therefore, 85 per cent of the cost of growing the crop was charged 
to the lint and 15 per cent to the cotton seed. The average cost of 




Fig. 19. — Field of Spanish iKnnnts riMily for i in ;i -lii im. T\\'- r.M mt liiuli prices offered 
for peanuts by the oil iiiills have greatly stimulated the production of that crop for the 
market. 

net lint^ grown by the wage system is 9.3 cents per pound, which 
reduced to gross lint^ equals 8.9 cents per pound. The cropper cotton 
costs 8.9 cents per pound of net lint to produce, which is equivalent 
to 8.5 cents per pound of gross lint. Since the cotton yield for the 
season of 1914 was somewhat higher than normal, these costs may 
be slightly lower than the average for a series of years. 

In certain years a considerable acreage of Sea Island cotton is 
planted in Brooks County, but in 1914 the amount grown was com- 
paratively unimportant. The number of records obtained are not 
sufficient to give a reliable average for this class of cotton, but the 
results are shown in the table for comparative purposes. 

1 By gross linf is meant the weiglit in the bale, including bagging and ties. By net lint 
is meant the gross lint minus the bagging and ties. Except where otherwise stated, the 
term " lint " is used throughout to denote net lint. The average weight of bales was 510 
pounds, of which 23 pounds consisted of bagging and ties. 



52 



BULLETIN 648, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTTJEE. 



CORN AND PEANUTS. 



Since corn and peanuts are commonly grown on the same land, 
the costs of these two crops will be considered together. Slightly 
more than two-thirds of the acreage of corn on these farms is planted 
in alternate rows with peanuts. Corn grown by itself, or ''solid," is 
planted in rows usually 4.5 feet' apart, but when the two crops are 
planted together the distance between the roAvs of corn is increased 
to 6 feet or more. There is some difference of opinion among the 
growers as to whether this widening of the rows results in the lower- 
ing of the yield of corn. The tabulated results, however, show that 
it does lower the yield to the extent of 15 per cent. But growing the 




Pig. 20. — With the increaspd production of peanuts for the market many power " pickers " 
have been introduced. The straw is baled and used for feed. 



two crops together results in distinct economies of labor and use of 
land, which much more than offsets the somewhat lower corn yield. 
Com grown alone costs 83 cents per bushel to produce by the wag© 
system, and 84 cents by the cropper system, whereas corn grown with 
peanuts cost 67 and 66 cents per bushel, respectively. An acre of 
peanuts in corn, it was found, costs approximately one-half as much 
as an acre of peanuts planted alone. These cost's indicate that the 
local practice of growing the two crops together is an excellent one. 
The costs of growing the two crops when planted together can not 
be divided on the basis of the respective values of each, since peanuts 
are nearly all pastured off, and as pasture they do not have a defi- 
nitely measurable commercial value. Therefore, all costs that clearly 
could be charged to either of the crops separately were so entered. 
But the few mutual costs, such as the breaking of the land, and land 



A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 53 

rent, which could not be directly separated, were divided between 
the two crops in the proportion of 63 per cent to the corn and 37 
per cent to the peanuts. This division is based on the assumption 
that an acre of the combination crop is equal to 50 per cent of a full 
acre of peanuts and 85 per cent of an acre of corn. The ratio be- 
tween these percentages is approximately 37 to 63. It is universally 
held by farmers in Brooks County that 2 acres of peanuts planted 
in alternate rows with corn are in every respect' equal to 1 acre 
planted " solid '' ; and it was found that the corn yield when the two 
crops are planted together equals 85 per cent of the yield secured 
from corn planted alone. 

Peanuts are grown on these farms primarily to furnish pasture for 
hogs, onl_v sufficient seed being harvested to replace the seed planted 
and to furnish a small surplus for consumption in the home and for 
sale. The harvesting is therefore done on a small scale and hence is 
nearly all hand labor, resulting in a rather high cost of production 
for the peanuts picked. (See fig. 18.) Had harvesting been done 
on a scale sufficient to warrant the use of harvesting machiner}^, the 
cost per bushel would have been considerably lower than shown in 
tlie tables. When peanuts were gathered from areas used mainly for 
pasture, the value of the seed saved was deducted from the total cost 
and the remainder entered against the hogs as a pasture charge. 
Since this survey was made the increased market price for peanuts 
has greatly stimulated the production of this crop as a source of cash 
receipts. (See figs. 19 and 20.) 

Only a part of the corn fodder produced on these farms is har- 
A'ested, and that part represents such a small percentage of the 
value of the whole crop that it is here treated as a by-product, 
the value of the fodder gathered being deducted from the total cost 
of growing the crop, and the balance charged to the grain. 

OATS. 

Oats are grown on almost every farm as a source of feed for work 
stock, and on nearly half of them oats served as a source of revenue. 
r)n many they were grown for a winter cover crop and to furnish 
winter and spring pasture for hogs and cattle. Much of that fed 
to work stock is fed in the sheaf. 

RYE. 

Rye is grown on a considerable proportion of these farms, but 
mainly as a cover and pasture crop. On several farms the grain 
is harvested and sold locally for seed purposes. The yield is low 
but the price is high, nearly $2 per bushel, resulting in a wide 



54 BULLETIN 648, U. S. DEPARTMEISTT OF AGBICULTTTEE. 

margin of profit per bushel. As a grain crop, rye is very uncertain 
on this light, sandy soil, but it fills an important place as a cover 
and pasture crop. 

COWPEA HAY. 

Cowpeas are frequently difficult to cure for hay in this region, 
owing to rains during the period in which this crop matures. For 
tliis reason, the crop is not so commonly planted here as it is but 
a short distance farther north in the State. One-half of the area 
of oats and rye for grain is followed by a crop of cowpeas. One- 
third of the farms reported receipts from the sale of cowpea hay. 
The yield reported was low, averaging a little more than one-half 
ton to the acre. For purposes of determining costs, the crops 
baled were kept separated from those unbaled, the respective costs 
per ton of hay in the barn being $16.72 and $18.58. The difference 
in cost in favor of the crop bales was undoubtedly due largely to 
the difference in yields. Higher yields would unquestionably have 
given correspondingly lower costs per ton. 

WATERMELONS. 

Brooks County is in the center of an important area for the pro- 
duction of watermelons for shipping to northern markets, and on 
nearly half of the farms studied this crop is an important source of 
income. The fertilizer charge is the largest single item of cost, 
closely followed by that for man labor. It is usual for a professional 
car loader to pack the melons in the cars at a fixed rate per car. This 
cost is entered as " special carloader," instead of being included under 
costs of man labor. The material used for bedding the cars is mainly 
pine needles or oats or rye straw, the local value of which is nominal, 
and the cost of hauling which is included under the labor charges. 
The paper, nails, and slats charged are for lining and closing the 
cars. After the crop is harvested, cattle and hogs are usually allowed 
to graze off the cull melons and the growth of crab grass. The esti- 
mated value of such pasturage has been deducted from the gross cost 
as a pasture credit. Often a crop of cowpea hay follows the melons, 
in which case the former shares its proportionate part of the land- 
rent charge. The net cost of this crop amounts to $25.09 per acre, 
or $50.18 per carload. Nearly all the melons are bought on the 
loaded car at the shipping point, and the costs shown are figured at 
that point. 

The average yield of half a carload per acre was normal, but the 
market price declined in the middle of the harvesting season to so 
low a point that a part of the crop was not gathered. The costs 
given in the table represent crops harvested and do not include the 



A FAEM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 55 

cost of mercliantable melons left in the field. When the cost is com- 
puted for the entire acreage of melons grown on the 4G farms, the 
cost per acre amounts to $^2.17, or $58.32 per carload of melons 
harvested and sold. 

SUGAR CANE. 

Sugar cane is grown on every farm to produce sirup for home use, 
and on two-thirds of the farms it serves as a source of farm sales. 
The sirup is usually sold in barrels to the local merchants, who ship 
much of it out of the county. The average price received in the 
barrel during 1914 was 26 cents per gallon. The costs shown herein 
represent the cost of the gi-owing of the crop, grinding, evaporating, 
and putting in barrels on the farm. 

This crop is a very intensive one, requiring a large amount of 
labor per acre. Man labor is by far the largest item of cost, followed 
by mule labor, seed cane, and fertilizer. A considerable part of the 
latter consists of stable manure. The wood fuel used in evaporating 
the sirup is cut on the farms, and the labor of cutting and hauling 
the wood is included in the labor charges. The value of the seed 
cane saved and the small amount of canes sold or consumed on the 
farm has been deducted from the total cost, and the balance charged 
to the sirup, making the average cost 24 cents per gallon. The costs 
represent small scale production, but the profit per acre is fairly 
large. This crop can be grown at a comparatively low cost per unit 
of product, the chief problem being one of marketing the product. 

SWEET POTATOES. 

Sweet potatoes are grown in Brooks County only on a small scale, 
mainly for home consumption and for hog pasture. Nearly half of 
the cost of growing the crop is chargeable to man labor, the next 
largest items being mule labor, fertilizer, and land rent. The acre 
cost of the crop for hog pasture is $19.53 as compared with $29.89 
for the crop harvested and put in the "banks," the difference being 
the cost of gathering. The average yield was 109 bushels and the 
cost per bushel 24 cents. These costs represent small scale produc- 
tion and not growing on a commercial basis. The margin of profit 
is wide and it would seem that the crop offers opportunities for com- 
mercial production, provided a market can be found for the product. 

IRISH POTATOES. 

Only four farms were found growing Irish potatoes primarily for 
marketing. The ^dold secured was 69 bushels per acre. The costs 
amounted to $37.37 per acre and 55 cents per bushel in sacks on the 
farm. At the price received, about $1.19 per bushel, the margin 
of profit is the widest found of any of the crops grown on these 
farms. 



56 BULLETIN 648, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGEICULTUEE. 

COST OF FEEDING CATTLE. 

An increasing number of farmers in Brooks Comity are making 
a practice of fattening cattle for the market. Many of the feeders 
are shipped in from Florida. Others are purchased from farmers 
within the county or raised on the farms on which they are fed. 
Three such cattle feeders were included in the survey, and the 
itemized costs of feding are shown in Table XXI, 

Table XXI. — Cost of feeding cattle on 3 farms (Brooks County, Ga.). 
Number of cattle fed, 378: number of poimds gained, C2.070. 



Man labor (208.5 days) 

Mule labor (323 days) 

Equipment cost 

Cottonseed meal (140 tons) 

Cotton hulls (122.2 tons 

Hay (3 tons) 

Silage (corn and sorghum) (132 tons) . 

Pasture b 

Bedding c (125 loads) 

Dipping, dehorning. . , 

Interest 

Taxes 



Gross cost 

Manure credit (1,120 loads) . 



Net cost of gains 

Cost of cattle at beguming of feeding period. 

Cost of cattle at end of feeding period 

Price received f . o. b. Quitman 



Loss 

Cost per 100 pounds of gain (weight at Quitman) . 



Cost. 



$345. 31 

292. 91 

55.46 

3, 155. 00 

625.00 

30.00 

o 506. 47 

220.00 

30.00 

27.00 

327.31 

27.00 



5, 641. 46 
1,120.00 



4,524.46 
7, 612. 00 



12, 136. 46 
12,091.00 



45.46 
7.29 



a Charged at cost of production. 

b 123 head for 2 months and 200 head for 31 months. 

e Oats, rye, and pine straw. Cost of haulmg included under labor charges. 

The 378 cattle fed gained 62,070 pounds, or 164 pounds per head, 
at a gross cost of $9.09 per hundredweight. Deducting the value of 
the manure, estimated at $1 per wagonload in the feed lot, gives a 
net cost of $7.29 per hundredweight. On one farm the cattle 
gained 200 pounds per head, at a cost of 6.1 cents per pound, and 
returned a profit of $4.74 each ; on another the gains were 150 pounds 
per head, at a cost of 8.9 cents per pound, resulting in a loss of $5.46 
per head; while on tlie third farm the cattle gained 112 pounds each, 
at a cost per pound of 9.6 cents, and netted a loss per animal of $5.66. 
The cattle were sold when the foot-and-mouth quarantine was in 
effect and the market depressed;. hence normally a better showing 
in the matter of profits could be expected. 

The cost of cottonseed meal and hulls constitutes nearly 84 per 
cent of the total feed cost. The silage fed is charged at the cost of 
production, since it has not here a' recognized definite value. But 
all other feeds are charged at the prices on the farm or at the point 
of purchase. The labor charge includes the labor of buying the 
cattle, hauling feed from shipping point, feed and care of the cattle. 



A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 



57 



and marketing. The total costs are figured at f. o. b. the shipping 
point, Quitman. 

COST OF SWINE PRODUCTION. 

On 55 of the 106 farms surveyed hogs were raised in sufficient 
numbers to justify the calcuhitions of cost of production. The 
itemized costs on these farms are shown graphically in figure 21, and 
in detail in Table XXII. 



ITEM5 


103 


COST PELR 100 POUNDS LIVE WEIGHT 
»l.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 


TOTAL COST 

FCED coar 

MAN LA BOR 
INTEREST 8tTAXE5 
MULE LABOR., EQUIPM'T 
VETE.RINARY, SERUM, ETC 


100.0 

85,0 

9.1 

3.4 

1 .0 

.9 






mM^mmmmmmmmmMmm^^^^^i 


m 

1 

1 



Peanuts Pastured 



I Other Picture S Com ^ Watermelons feci ZZ2 Manure Credits 

Fig. 21. — Cost of swiue productiou. 



It will be seen b}' the table that of the gross cost of producing 
hogs, one-half is accounted for by the cost of peanuts pastured, two- 
thirds by all crops pastured, and 85 per cent by all classes of feeds. 
The peanuts, oats, rj^e, and sweet potatoes fed were all pasture crops 
and have no definite commercial vahie, hence are charged at the 
cost of production. All other pasture is entered at the estimated 
renting value. Corn is charged at the farm price. 

Table XXII. — Cost of sirinc production on 55 farms (Brooks Countji, Ga.). 
Numl)er of hog units a per farm, 77; pounds of live weight gains per farm, 11.033. 



Cost per 
farm. 



Cost per 

100 
poimds 

live 
weight. 



Per cent 

of pross 

cost. 



Peanuts, pastured (32 acres) b 

Oats and rye, pastured 

Sweet potatoes, pastured (2.24 acres) b 

Woods pasture 

Other pastiu'e 



$309. 34 
2t). 03 
19.80 
9.78 
10.70 



82.80 
.23 
.18 
.09 
.10 



51.2 
4.3 
3.3 
1.6 

1.8 



Total pasture cost. 

Com ( 173 bushels) 

Watermelons, fed 



375. 05 

129. 40 

8.43 



3.40 
1.17 



62.2 

21.4 

1.4 



Total feed cost 

Man labor (41 days) 

Mule labor (5.1 days) 

Equipment 

Veterinary, serum, flips, mediaine . 

Interest 

Taxes 



Gross cost 

Manure credit. 



Net cost 

Net cost on 45 farms with no losses from cholera. 



513.48 
58. 00 
5.02 
1.13 
5.50 
19. 02 
.82 



4. 05 
..53 
.05 
.01 
.05 
.18 
.01 



85. 
9.7 



3.3 
.1 



004. 17 
40.85 



5.48 
.37 



100.0 

6.8 



5.11 
4.73 



a See footnote, p. 00, for definitions. 



b Charged at cost of production. 



58 BULLETIN 648. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRlCULTtrRE. 

Next to feeds, the largest item of cost is that of man labor, equal- 
ing nearly 10 per cent of the gi'oss costs, followed by the interest 
charge, and others of minor importance. The average number of 
hog units ^ on each farm was 77 and the cost per pound of live- 
weight gain 2 was 5.1 cents. Ten of these 55 farms suffered losses 
from hog cholera, which, of course, increased the cost per pound of 
the remaining hogs. On the 45 farms free from such losses the 
average cost per pound was 4.7 cents. 

The manure credit that has been deducted from the gross cost 
represents the estimated value of the residual fertilizing effect of 
the peanuts pastured off by the hogs. It is the consensus of opinion 
held by these farmers, based on experience, that the peanut crop 
grown and harvested from the soil is as severe a drain on soil fer- 
tility as is the growing of a crop of corn. Manifestly, then, any 
fertilizing value of peanuts " hogged off " is the value due to the 
method of harvesting, and as such should be a credit to the hogs and 
not to the peanuts. The average of a large number of estimates^ 
places this fertilizer value due to the method of harvesting at $1.50 
per acre of " solid " peanuts " hogged off,'' and at 75 cents per acre 
of peanuts and corn. Upon this basis the credits to the hogs have 
been calculated and entered as a manure credit. 

Of special significance is the large proportion of the cost repre- 
sented by pasture crops, especially peanuts. Undoubtedly herein 
lies the secret of profitable swine production in Brooks County. 

Cost of slaughtering and curing swine. — It has long been the prac- 
tice of the farmers of Brooks County to slaughter their hogs at 
home. Recently, hbwever, a packing plant has been erected in an 
adjoining county, affording a ready market for live stock. Since 
the farmers now have the choice of selling their hogs on foot or of 
doing the slaughtering at home and marketing the resulting prod- 
ucts, it is of interest to know the cost of killing and curing at home. 
These costs are shown in Table XXIII, On the farms that killed 
an average of 2,764 pounds of live hogs the cost amounted to 87 cents 
per hundred pounds of live weight, but on the farms that slaughtered 
16,395 pounds each the cost was reduced by nearly one-half, or to 

1 A hog unit is a mature hog maintained on the farm during the year, or the equiva- 
lent of a 200-pound hog grown during the year. Immature hogs slaughtei-ed or on hand 
at the end of the year were reduced to hog units by dividing the total live weight by 200 
pounds. 

2 The live-weight gain includes the weight of all hogs sold and slaughtered, and any 
differences in the weights of all hogs on the farms at the beginning add ending of the 
farm year. 

2 In getting these estimates the farmers were aslicd, first, how much more rent they 
would be willing to pay for the use of BroolvS County land on which either peanuts or 
peanuts and corn had been grown the previous year than they would for similar land that 
had produced a crop of corn ; second, how much less fertilizer, measured by value, they 
would apply to a crop of cotton planted on land that had produced peanuts or peanuts 
and corn than on land following corn. The replies gave a wide range of estimates, the 
average of which is given above. 



A FARM MANAGEMENT SURVEY IN BROOKS CO., GA. 



59 



46 cents per hundred pounds. The average cost was 54 cents. This 
does not include the marketing of the meat, but it does include the 
hauling of the ice, salt, etc., to the farm. It represents the cost of 
the meat cured ready to sell. 



Tablk XXIII. — Cost of killing and curing sivine {Brooks County, Ga.). 



Average 
of all 
farms. 



Farms having each specified number of 
pounds of swine (live weight) killed 
per farm. 



Less 

than 

5,000 

pounds. 



5,000 to 

7,000 
pounds. 



7,000 to 

10,000 

pounds. 



10,000 
pounds 
and over. 



Number of farms 

Average per farm: 

Live weight killed (pounds). 



Number of hogs killed 

Average weight per hosr killed (poimds). 



Man labor (days) . 
Mule labor (days). 



179 



18.01 
1.57 



14 

2,764 
21 
132 



10. 1 

.40 



10 

5,446 
33.7 
161 

13.5 

.82 



14 

16,395 
S3 
193 



20.3 
1.4 



27.1 
3.5 



Cost of man labor. . 
Cost of mule labor. 
Equipment cost. .. 
Building charge a. . 

Salt 

Borax 

loe 



$23.51 
1.39 

.10 
7.73 
9.28 

.43 
3.10 



$13. 58 

.43 

.03 

3.96 

4.22 

.50 

1.22 



$15. 20 

.73 

.09 

5.60 

6.32 

.57 

1.08 



$26. 70 
1.07 

.14 
7.71 
9.60 

.27 
3.11 



$36. 65 
3.08 
.14 
13.04 
16.15 
.40 
6.40 



Total cost 

Cost per 100 pounds of live weight killed. 



45.54 
0.54 



23.95 
0.S7 



29.58 
0.54 



4S. 60 
0.59 



75.86 
0.46 



a Cold storage and smokehouses. 

Approximately half the total costs consist of man labor. It is the 
usual practice to pay with scraps of the cheaper cuts of meats, the 
extra labor needed for killing. It should be borne in mind that a 
considerable part of the labor charge is the cost of supervision by the 
farmer, and that the slaughtering is done in January, at times when 
there is not much pressure of other work. 



PUBLICATIONS OF THE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
RELATING TO THE SUBJECT OF THIS BULLETIN. 

AVAILABLE FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION BY THE DEPARTMENT. 

A System of Farm Cost Accounting. (Farmers' Bulletin 572.) 

A Corn Belt Farming System which Saves Harvest Labor by Hogging Down 

Crops. (Farmers' Bulletin 614.) 
What a Farm Contributes Directly to the Farmer's Living. (Farmers' Bulletin 

635.) 
A Method of Analyzing Farm Business. (Farmers' Bulletin 661.) 
Trenching INIachinery used for the Construction of Trenches for the Tile Drains. 

(Farmers' Bulletin 698.) 
Suggestions for Parcel Post Marketing. (Farmers' Bulletin 703.) 
An Economic Study of Farm Tractor in Corn Belt. (Farmers' Bulletin 719.) 
Waste Land and Wasted Lands on Farms. (Farmers' Bulletin 745.) 
The Farmer's Income. (Farmers' Bulletin 746.) 
The Use of a Dairy for Farm Account. (Farmers' Bulletin 782.) 
How the I^ederal Farm Loan Act Benefits the Farmer. (Farmers' Bulletin 792.) 
Minor Articles of Farm Equipment. (Farmers' Bulletin 816.) 
Example of Successful Farm Management in Southern New Yoi-k. (Depart- 
ment Bulletin 32.) 
Cooperative Organization Business Methods. (Department Bulletin 178.) 
Outlets and Methods of Sale for Shippers of Fruits and Vegetables. (Depart- 
ment Bulletin 266.) 
Methods of Wholesale Distribution of Fruits and Vegetables on Large Markets. 

(Department Bulletin 267.) 
Relation between Primary Market Prices and Qualities of Cotton. (Depart- 
ment Bulletin 457.) 
Farm Practice in Cultivation of Cotton. (Department Bulletin 511.) 
Seasonable Distribution of Farm Labor in Chester County, Pa. (Department 

Bulletin 528.) 
Validity of Survey Method of Research in Farm Management. (Department 

Bulletin 529.) 
What is Farm Management. (Bureau of Plant Industry Bulletin 259.) 

FOR SALE BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS, GOVERNMENT PRINTING 
OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C. 

Renovating Worn-out Soils. (Farmers' Bulletin 245.) Price 5 cents. 

A Successful Alabama 'Diversification Farm. (Farmers' Bulletin 310.) Price 

5 cents. 
Replanning a Farm for Profit. (Farmers' Bulletin 370.) Price 5 cents. 
Farm Bookkeeping. (Farmers' Bulletin 511.) Price 5 cents. 
How to I^se Farm Credit. (Farmers' Bulletin 593.) Price 5 cents. 
Outfit for Boring Taprooted Stumps for Blasting. (Farmers' Bulletin 600.) 

Price 5 cents. 
Demurrage Information for Farmers. (Department Bulletin 191.) Price 

5 cents. 
Costs and Sources of Farm-mortgage Loans in United States. (Department 

Bulletin 384.) Price 10 cente. 
Agricultural Conditions in Southern New York, (Bureau of Plant Industry 

Circular 64.) Price 5 cents, 
GO 



ADDITIONAL COPIES 

OF THIS PXJBLICATION MAY BE PROCURED FROM 

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 

AT 

10 CENTS PER COPY 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



D002t,711S3fi 



